[00:00:03]
ALL RIGHTY.[I. 4:00 PM - Call to Order]
IS MY HONOR TO CALL TO ORDER THE 4:00 PM UH, BUSINESS MEETING OF THE GOON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.WE'LL START OFF THE MEETING LIKE WE ALWAYS DO WITH AN INVOCATION.
UM, THIS MONTH, UM, RECTOR DAVID MAY FROM ST.
MARY'S EPISCOPAL WILL LEAD US IN THE INVOCATION AND THEN FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY VICE CHAIR OF WATERS.
[II. Invocation: Pastor David May of St. Mary's Episcopal Church]
UM, AS AN EPISCOPALIAN, OUR TRADITION IS THAT WE CALL FOR PRAYER BY SAYING THE LORD BE WITH YOU.AND IF YOU WISH, YOU CAN RESPOND.
LOOK AT YOU, THE LORD BE WITH YOU.
LET US PRAY ALMIGHTY GOD, WHO HAS GIVEN US THIS GOOD LAND AS STEWARDS OF YOUR GOODNESS, WE HUMBLY BESEECH THEE THAT WE MAY ALWAYS PROVE OURSELVES OF PEOPLE MINDFUL OF THY BLESSINGS, AND GLAD TO DO THY WILL BLESS THIS LAND WITH HONORABLE INDUSTRY, SOUND LEARNING, AND PURE MANNERS SAVE US FROM VIOLENCE, DISCORD AND CONFUSION, FROM PRIDE AND ARROGANCE, AND FROM EVERY EVIL, DEFEND OUR LIBERTIES AND FASHION INTO ONE UNITED PEOPLE.
THE MULTITUDES BROUGHT HITHER OUT OF MANY KINDREDS AND TONGUES IN ENDURE WITH THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM, THOSE TO WHOM IN THY NAME.
WE ENTRUST THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT AND ESPECIALLY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THIS COUNTY, MEETING TOGETHER THIS DAY, THAT THERE MAY BE JUSTICE AND PEACE AT HOME.
AND THAT THROUGH OBEDIENCE TO THY LAW, WE MAY SHOW FORTH THY PRAISE AMONG THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH IN THE TIME OF PROSPERITY, FILL OUR HEARTS WITH THANKFULNESS, AND IN THE DAY OF TROUBLE, SUFFER NOT OUR TRUST IN THEE TO FAIL, ALL WHICH WE ASK THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.
[III. Pledge of Allegiance]
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IS SEEN ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.UM, SO I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS TO MAKE.
UM, WANNA REMIND FOLKS THAT OCTOBER 24TH AT 9:00 AM UM, WE WILL HAVE
[IV. Chair's Comments]
OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WORK SESSION ON THE CENTERVILLE SMALL AREA PLAN.AND IT'LL BE IN CONFERENCE FROM TWO 70 AND IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
ALSO WANT TO REMIND FOLKS THAT OUR, OUR KIDS ARE BACK IN SCHOOL.
SO PLEASE, WHEN YOU'RE OUT ON THE ROADS, PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE BUSES AND, UM, AND, AND THE CHILDREN GETTING OFF SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A SAFE AND WONDERFUL YEAR THIS YEAR.
THAT'S MY COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UH, THE FIRST IS I WISH TO REMIND OUR COMMUNITY
[V. County Administrator's Comments]
AND THE BOARD OF OUR REMEMBRANCES FOR THE, UH, EVENTS OF 22 YEARS AGO ON SEPTEMBER 11TH.THERE'LL BE TWO EVENTS SCHEDULED IN GLAND THAT DAY.
ONE AT 9:45 AM AT COMPANY FIVE FIREHOUSE, THEN ONE AT 7:00 PM AT COMPANY ONE FIREHOUSE ON RIVER ROAD WEST.
UH, THE COMPANY ONE FIREHOUSE AT THE LOCATION OF THE COUNTY'S NINE 11 MEMORIAL.
UH, AND THAT IS, UH, FOCUSED ON THE PUBLIC.
UH, THE 9:45 AM IS A CEREMONY FOCUSED ON THE LIVES OF THE FIRST RESPONDERS THAT WERE LOST IN THAT TRAGIC EVENT.
ALSO, MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS THE BOARD.
I WANT TO, UM, TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO RECOGNIZE A VERY, VERY SPECIAL EVENT THAT HAPPENED IN, UM, IN OUR COUNTY'S, UH, LIFE RECENTLY.
UM, THE COUNTY RECEIVED AN AWARD AND A LOT OF TIMES YOU HEAR ABOUT RECEIVING AWARDS, BUT THIS IS A SPECIAL AWARD AND IT, IT SPEAKS WELL TO THE HEART, TO THE PASSION AND TO THE DILIGENCE AND THE EXPERIENCE OF OUR TEAM.
UH, THE TYLER EXCELLENCE AWARD IS GIVEN EVERY YEAR TO AN OUTSTANDING LOCALITY WHO HAS SHOWN MARKET SUCCESS IN IMPLEMENTING A TYLER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION.
NOW, THIS IS A NATIONWIDE WORLDWIDE COMPANY.
UCHIN COUNTY WAS RECOGNIZED FOR OUR SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT TO OBTAIN GREATER EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS IN SERVING OUR COMMUNITY.
ORGANIZATIONS WERE EVALUATED BY DIVERSE PANEL OF LEADERSHIP AND GUIN COUNTY WAS AWARDED THE EXCELLENCE AWARD FOR OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY BY IMPLEMENTING OUR INTER GOV SOLUTIONS AS A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS, NEW PERMITTING SOFTWARE.
THE PROCESS WAS IMPLEMENTED TO REPLACE OUR AGING EXISTING SYSTEM, AND IT TOOK APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS FROM THE START TO THE FINISH AND INVOLVED EVERY SINGLE STAFF PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
THE CORE IMPLEMENTATION, THE CORE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM IS PRESENT TODAY.
UM, SARAH WORLEY, GARY FISHER, CASEY LITTLEFIELD, ASHLEY PARKER, JAMIE SHERRY, DAVID CROKER, JOHN WORLEY.
[00:05:01]
HAD, UH, PEOPLE WHO HELPED IMPLEMENT IT VERY BEGINNING, UM, MS. JOANNE HUNTER, AND THEN CARRYING IT THROUGH AS WELL.SO CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TEAM IN UCHIN COUNTY FOR WINNING THE AWARD.
MS. WORLEY, IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND BRING EVERYONE UP WITH YOU, AND THEN YES, LET'S ABSOLUTELY.
AND AGAIN, THANKS AND APPRECIATION TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM THAT ARE HERE AND THOSE THAT WERE NOT AS WELL.
ALSO BE CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY.
I WISH TO MAKE JUST, JUST SOME COMMENTS, UM, THAT I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE ABOUT, UM, ABOUT THE STAFF OF LEADERSHIP OF UCHIN COUNTY.
UH, CURRENTLY, THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT ARE, UM, IN FRONT OF OUR BOARD THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT FOR A LONG WHILE.
SOME OF OUR SMALL AREA PLANS, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER VERY, VERY HOT TOPICS, VERY EMOTIONAL, VERY PASSIONATE.
AND I ALWAYS TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT, THAT THE UCHIN COUNTY STAFF ARE COMPLETELY PROFESSIONAL IN WHAT THEY DO, AND THEY ARE VERY COMMITTED TO DOING THEIR JOB THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
AND THEY DO THEIR JOB THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THEY ARE ACCURATE IN WHAT THEY DO, THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL IN WHAT THEY DO, AND THEY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT WHAT THEY DO.
UM, COMMENTS THAT, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE AT SOME POINT, UM, REGARDING THE STAFF'S OBJECTIVITY.
OBJECTIVITY, UH, I JUST REALLY WISH TO, TO PUBLICLY SAY THAT, THAT THAT DON'T NEED TO BE MADE.
OUR STAFF IS VERY OBJECTIVE IN WHAT THEY DO, AND, AND WHEN THEY GET UP AND THEY SAY SOMETHING, IT IS COMING FROM A PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND A PROFESSIONAL POSITION.
SO I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE ANYBODY, ANYONE IN OUR COMMUNITY, IF, IF AN ISSUE IS IN FRONT OF YOU THAT, THAT YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT, JUST PLEASE REMEMBER THE STAFF IS UP THERE DOING A, A GREAT JOB AND THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN.
AND THEY HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF THIS BOARD AND MYSELF IN DOING IT.
AND, AND IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE CONVERSATIONS, LET'S ALWAYS MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF DECORUM IN OUR CONVERSATIONS.
BUT, BUT THIS STAFF DOES A GREAT JOB AND I JUST FELT THAT IT NEEDED TO BE SAID AND I WANT SAY IT.
SO AGAIN, STAFF, THANK YOU FOR THE JOB YOU DO.
ALRIGHT, BOARD, IS THERE ANY REQUEST TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADDITION DELETIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD.
OUR CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD, UM, IS A TIME FOR FOLKS TO COME AND SPEAK
[VI. Requests to Postpone Agenda Items and Additions, Deletions or Changes in the]
ABOUT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA THAT[VII. Citizen Comment]
ARE APPLICABLE TO GLAND COUNTY.YOU HAVE, UM, THREE MINUTES, UM, AND JUST MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON, WHICH IT IS, AND PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AS YOU COME UP.
JONATHAN LYLE, 1521 MANNEQUIN ROAD.
I'M, UH, CHAIRMAN THIS YEAR OF THE MON AND SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND I'M ALSO A OSELAND FARM BUREAU DIRECTOR.
UH, NONE OF THE COMMENTS I'M MAKING ARE RESOLUTIONS FROM EITHER BOARD, BUT THEY ARE INFORMATIONAL.
UH, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, WITH MONICA AND SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WE'VE HAD, UH, ONE STAFF MEMBER RETIRE AFTER 17 YEARS, BETTY MCCRACKEN.
UH, WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING AN ASSESSMENT OF OUR STAFFING NEEDS.
I EXPECT WE WILL POST AND REPLACE, UH, THAT STAFF POSITION, BUT WE ARE DOING DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT OUR MISSION IS MOVING FORWARD.
UH, ALSO, UH, NICOLE SCHUMANN, WHO WAS THE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENT, VENTURE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, WAS A DIRECTOR OF OURS BY VIRTUE OF THAT OFFICE.
UH, SHE HAS, UM, LEFT GOLAND, UM, I DON'T EVEN WANNA SAY WHERE.
SHE REALLY WAS A TREMENDOUS RESOURCE FOR US.
BUT WE'RE DOWN A DIRECTOR AND DEPENDING ON HOW QUICKLY VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION IN VIRGINIA TECH MOVES, SHE WILL BE REPLACED.
UH, EARLIER THIS, WELL, NO, IT WAS LAST MONTH.
MR. SPOONER, UH, TOOK ONE FOR THE TEAM.
HE CAME OUT AND DID, AS HE PUT IT, AN ACTUAL FIELD, UH, VISIT, I GUESS, OR HE HAD A FIELD TRIP.
UH, WE WENT TO BOTH FOUR L RANCH WHERE WE HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE, UH, UM, PROGRAM, PROJECT B M P GOING ON AND ALSO COOPERATING WITH, UH, JAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY OVER AT THE, UH, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE THERE ON ROUTE SIX.
UH, WE'RE CONTINUING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH GREENS.
WELL GROWERS, THEY GENERATE 25,000 POUNDS A WEEK, UH, ROOTS STEMS. AND PETE, UH, MR. BAUER SAYS HE'S MEETING WITH THE CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT FOLKS AND THERE MAY BE A SOLUTION THERE SO FAR AS GREENWELL'S CONCERNED.
AND OUR NEXT MEETING IS MONDAY THE 18TH AT 9:00 AM
[00:10:01]
WE'RE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND WE ALSO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, ON THE FARM BUREAU.I WANNA MENTION THAT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT FARM BUREAU MEMBERS, IF YOU ARE A FARM BUREAU MEMBER, YOU'VE ALL RECEIVED YOUR INVITATION.
BUT OUR ANNUAL MEETING IS ON THE 18TH AT THE FIFE, UH, FIREHOUSE.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE, UH, THAT ON YOUR CALENDAR, SEE ME, I'LL MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE.
UM, AND HAYES GOTTWALD FROM HG MEETS IS GONNA BE GIVEN A PRESENTATION ON THE UPDATE ON HIS MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES.
IT GROWS OUT THERE IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE COUNTY.
I WANNA COMPLIMENT MS. WERLEY AND, UH, VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ON THE AG EXPO THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE 12TH.
I KNOW MANY OF OUR FARMERS HAD UPWARDS OF 30 DIFFERENT VISITORS, AND, UH, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING IT EVEN BIGGER AND BETTER NEXT YEAR.
UH, WELL, WATER TESTING TAKES PLACE THIS MONTH.
IF YOU'RE ON A WELL FOR $65, YOU CAN GET YOUR WELL WATER TESTED THIS YEAR.
ROTARY AND UCHIN CARES ARE COLLABORATING AND SO IF THERE ARE PEOPLE FINANCIALLY CHALLENGED, THEY CAN GET THEIR WELL WATER TESTED FOR FREE.
I MEAN, IT'LL BE COVERED BY ROTARY AND GOON CARE.
SO, UH, I'M NOT GONNA READ THIS EXTENSIVE, UH, U R L, BUT YOU CAN GO ONLINE AND GET YOUR APPLICATION IN.
AND I WILL MENTION THAT THE VIRGINIA STATE FAIR, AGAIN, ALL OF US WHO ARE FARM BUREAU MEMBERS GET A DISCOUNT, BUT IT WILL BE TAKING PLACE UP AT, UH, DOSWELL AT, UH, THE STATE FAIR GROUNDS.
AND IT'LL BE THE SEPTEMBER 22ND TO THE FIRST WEAR RAINCOAT.
UM, LINDA MOORE, 2164 PROFIT ROAD, UM, MANIKIN ABBOTT.
UM, I GOT THREE OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE DECIDED TO, UM, COME TODAY TO, TO, UM, HELP SUPPORT ME.
UM, YOU WANT TO PUT IT, OH, IT'S ALREADY UP.
I, I PROVIDED YOU ALL WITH PACKETS, UM, UH, OF INFORMATION.
UM, THE MAIN ISSUE THAT WE ARE FINDING CHALLENGING, UH, TO US IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAPS.
UM, SO WE SPEAK VOLUMES TO, TO THE DIFFERENT MAPS THAT ARE USED IN THE COUNTY.
UM, AND THE NEW MAPS THAT WERE USED.
I'M SORRY, MY BLOOD SUGAR IS NOT DOING REAL WELL RIGHT NOW.
UM, THE NEW MAPS THAT WERE MADE BY TIMMONS AND HILL THAT ARE THE CONSULTANTS MAPS WERE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME WITH COORDINATING WHICH AREA THERE IS NO GREEN OR, UH, YELLOW, UM, IN THE MAP.
MY FIVE YEAR OLD NEIGHBOR, UM, CAME OVER TO MY HOUSE AND I HAD ALL THESE MAPS UP AND SHE, SHE WAS SAYING, THIS MAP IS BEAUTIFUL.
AND IT WAS THE 2035 MAP THAT HAD ALL THE PRETTY YELLOWS AND GREENS AND BLUE LINES, AND SHE SAW THE OTHER ONE AND SHE SAYS, THAT'S UGLY.
AND, AND I SAID, OH, WELL, YOU, WELL, IT IS, IT'S JUST A PROPOSED MAP.
SO IF A FIVE YEAR OLD CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE, UM, AND UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT, WHAT THESE MAPS MEAN, UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH, WITH IT.
I LIVE 2100 PROPHET ROAD, THE VERY END TUCK CREEK GOES THROUGH MY BACKYARD.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER THE DENSITY GOING FORWARD BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ON OCTOBER 24TH.
I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS THAT SOMEBODY'S GONNA COME IN AND TELL ME HOW TO LIVE WHERE I LIVE, AND I LOVE WHERE I LIVE.
I WANNA KEEP IT THE VILLAGE CONCEPT.
YOU DRIVE AROUND, NOTHING'S SUPER HIGH.
I KNOW A LOT OF PLANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, BUT CONSIDER IF YOU LIVE IN THE FAR WEST END OF GLAND COUNTY AND YOU'RE LIKE, WELL, THAT'S OKAY.
CONSIDER IF YOU LIVE A MILE LIKE I DO FROM CENTERVILLE, AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH THAT EVERY DAY WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC AND THE HIGH DENSITY.
I LEAVE HENRICO COUNTY WHERE I WORK, I DRIVE UNDER 2 88 AND I TAKE A BREATH.
THIS IS WHAT GLAND COUNTY IS ABOUT.
AND I THINK THE VILLAGE CONCEPT IS SMART AND I THINK WE NEED TO STICK TO IT AND CONSIDER ALL OF THE OPTIONS.
[00:15:01]
OTHER THING THAT I'VE ALSO NOTICED IS I DON'T WANT GLAND COUNTY TO LOOK LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE.I WENT DOWN TO NORTH CAROLINA, IT WAS IN CHARLOTTE, THIS, THIS SUMMER, IT LOOKS LIKE SHORT PUMP IN CHARLOTTE.
I GO UP TO SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA TO SEE MY FAMILY THAT LOOKS EXCEPT FOR THE MOUNTAINS.
MOST THINGS ARE SIMILAR IN MOST PLACES.
AND I THINK IF WE CAN KEEP UNI GLAND COUNTY UNIQUE, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE WANNA DO.
THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE ENJOY ABOUT OUR COUNTY.
UM, SO I DON'T WANT US TO BE LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IS WHERE WE, WHERE WILL WE LOOK LIKE IN 20 YEARS IF YOU CONSIDER WHERE, WHAT THINGS LOOK LIKE IN WHAT WAS CALLED THE FAR WEST END, REGENCY SQUARE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.
THEY'VE HAD TO SPEND SO MUCH TIME BRINGING LOTS OF MONEY THAT TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY TO UPGRADE THINGS.
AND IT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD LEAVE THE AREA TO GO ELSEWHERE.
SO YOU GUYS KNOW THE TREND THAT I'M SPEAKING OF, AND I WOULD YOU TO CONSIDER WHERE WE'RE GONNA LOOK LIKE IN 20 YEARS.
HOW'S EVERYONE? UM, MY NAME IS KRISTA ALSTON AND I'M AT 2103 PROFIT ROAD, AND I'M IN THE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END WITH ELIZABETH RIGHT ON THE TUCKAHOE CREEK AREA.
UM, AND WE HAVE NEVER BEEN HAPPIER.
LIVING IN GLAND IS JUST AMAZING.
UM, AND I HATE TO SAY THAT, OH MAN, MAYBE WE MADE A MISTAKE WHEN WE MOVED OUT HERE AND WE DIDN'T GO OUT FAR ENOUGH.
BUT DO WE REALLY HAVE TO GO OUT FAR ENOUGH TO GET AWAY FROM EVERYTHING? LIKE ELIZABETH SAID, WHEN WE JUST CROSS UNDER 2 88, IT'S JUST A WHOLE DIFFERENT FEELING.
UM, AND THE COMMUNITY, OF COURSE, JUST THE PEOPLE IS JUST AMAZING.
SO YES, SELFISHLY, UM, I DON'T WANT THINGS TO CHANGE TOO MUCH.
I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT DEVELOPMENT AND SOME THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN, BUT, UM, IF WE COULD JUST FIND THAT REALLY, REALLY GOOD BALANCE IN THAT LINE WITHOUT CROSSING THAT LINE TOO FAR.
UM, I DO HAVE A CONCERN LIVING RIGHT OFF OF MANNEQUIN ROAD AT, UH, MANNEQUIN AND BROAD ABOUT THE, THE TRAFFIC SITUATION, UM, WITH THOSE HIGHER DENSITY PROPOSED, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN SOME, WE'VE GOT THE HOCKET ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'VE GOTTEN THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT AT, UH, MANNEQUIN AND BROAD, UM, THAT DOES HAVE LESS LAND, LAND, UM, SMALLER ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, SO WE'VE GOT SOME OF THAT.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION NOT TO GO TOO EXTREME THAT WE TRY TO KEEP IT, KEEP A REASONABLE BALANCE WITH THAT SO THAT, THAT WE CAN KEEP GLAND SPECIAL AND WHAT'S THE MOST SPECIAL ABOUT GLAND AND JUST KEEP IT THAT WAY.
ANYONE ELSE FOR AYE? UM, KIM HUBBLE 2107, UH, PROFIT ROAD.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR NAME? KIM HUBBLE.
UM, SAME STREET, A LITTLE FARTHER UP.
BUT, UH, WHAT WE ARE BLESSED WITH, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE KIND OF CLOSE TO WHATEVER WE WANNA GET TO, IS WE'RE SURROUNDED BY TREES AND A LITTLE BIT OF CREEK, AND WE HAVE A BUFFER TO NOISE.
WE HAVE A, A, A BUFFER TO THAT PART THAT, UM, WE DON'T WANNA SEE COME INTO THE GOOCHLAND PART THAT'S JUST CALM AND COUNTRY AND RELAXING.
AND I KNOW IT'S THE EAST END OF GOOCHLAND, BUT IT'S STILL, IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT WORLD FROM TWO MILES DOWN THE ROAD.
UM, SO JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, DENSITY PLANS AND THE HEIGHT AND THE BUILDING RESTRICTIONS, IF WE COULD JUST BE COGNIZANT OF THAT AND, AND IT'S A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE BECAUSE IF ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THIS PLAN IS SOLD, THEN ALL OF THAT CAN BE GONE AND WE COULD BE UP AGAINST ALL OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.
SO JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT AS, AS RURAL AND AS SPECIAL IT AS IT IS.
SUSAN, I WANNA THANK YOU AND KEN FOR BEING PART OF THE BOARD THAT HELPED BRING GLAND BACK FROM THE BRINK OF FINANCIAL DISASTER REGARDING THE TUCKAHOE SERVICE DISTRICT.
LOOKING OUT FOR OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS IS ONE OF YOUR BIGGEST SU DUTIES AS SUPERVISORS.
BUT AS YOU KNOW, TAXPAYER MONEY IS NOW BEING WASTED BY A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER WHO WAS SUING THE OTHER SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.
THIS IS AN ASSAULT ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EVERY TAX PAYING CITIZEN OF GLAND COUNTY, YOU ALL CAN EITHER PUSH BACK ON HER OR SUPPORT HER.
WHAT YOU'VE DONE SO FAR IS CERTAINLY CLEAR YOUR CODE OF ETHICS POSTED ON THE BACK WALL.
IN ITEM TWO STATES, PUT LOYALTY TO THE HIGHEST MORAL PRINCIPLES AND TO THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE, ABOVE
[00:20:01]
LOYALTY TO INDIVIDUALS, DISTRICTS, OR PARTICULAR GROUPS.SUSAN, YOU'VE PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTED $885 TO THE LITIGATING SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER.
YOU'VE MADE A FACEBOOK POST SAYING, MY FRIEND ANGELA ALLEN NEEDS YOUR HELP.
PLEASE LIKE HER FACEBOOK PAGE AND RESPOND.
YOU'VE MADE A MORE RECENT COMMENT SAYING, WE SUPPORT YOU, ANGELA, 100%, AND YOU'VE EVEN SHOWN UP TO SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS WITH YOUR WE SUPPORT ANGELA RED T-SHIRT.
NEIL, YOU'VE PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTED $735 TO THE LITIGATING SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER.
YOU'VE HOSTED EVENTS FOR HER CAMPAIGN AND YOU'VE EVEN MADE A FACEBOOK POST SAYING ANGELA NEEDS HELP ON HER POST.
JOHN, YOU'VE PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTED $250 TO THE LITIGATING SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER.
CHARLIE, SO FAR, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS HAVE NOT REPORTED ANY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY YOU PERSONALLY TO THE LITIGATING SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER.
BUT YOU AS A GLAND, THE COOCH GLAND COUNTY, UM, REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE VOTED FOR THAT COMMITTEE RECENTLY TO DONATE $500 TO THE LITIGATING SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER WHO IS WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR ALL OF US WITH THIS LAWSUIT.
SUSAN JOHN O'NEAL, YOU'VE ALL BEEN ON THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE LONGER AND YOU VOTED TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTE $6,000 TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER WHO IS WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
YOU ALL FOUR ALSO VOTED ON A REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE RESOLUTION THAT MENTIONED HER DEDICATION, COMMITMENT, AND SERVICE TO THE GLAND COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND FAITHFULLY SERVING THE TAXPAYERS WELL, SHE SERVED THE LAWSUIT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND SHE'S UNFAITHFUL WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON LEGAL FEES.
SO ALL FOUR OF YOU HAVE PLACED YOUR LOYALTY TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND A GROUP ABOVE THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE AND THE TAXPAYERS IN PARTICULAR.
MS. MCGEE, THIS ETHICS COMPLAINT IS NOT ABOUT THESE FOUR INDIVIDUALS BREAKING ANY LAW.
IT IS STRICTLY ACCUSING THEM WITH BREAKING THE CODE OF ETHICS.
ITEM TWO, PUT LOYALTY TO THE HIGHEST MORAL PRINCIPLES AND TO THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE, ABOVE LOYALTY TO INDIVIDUALS, DISTRICTS, OR PARTICULAR GROUPS.
THEY ARE ENCOURAGING THE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER WHO FILED THE LAWSUIT WITH FINANCIAL AND MORAL SUPPORT AND ARE, THEY'RE ENCOURAGING THE LAWSUIT THAT IS WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY.
THE LAW IS A MINIMUM STANDARD.
TAXPAYERS DESERVE ETHICAL LEADERSHIP.
I'M WENDY HOBBS AND I LIVE IN SANDY HOOK TO THE BOARD CHAIR BOARD MEMBERS, MR. CARPENTER AND MS. MCGEE.
I REALLY JUST AMAZED AT HOW DEVICES WE BECOME IN THIS COUNTY AND IT SADDENS ME BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A COUNTY THAT, UM, PRIDE ITSELF IN WORKING TOGETHER.
AND I WILL BE SO HAPPY WHEN NOVEMBER THE SEVENTH COME.
SO WE CAN PUT SOME OF THIS BEHIND US, AT LEAST THE VISIBLE PART.
BUT WHAT YOU THINK AND WHAT YOU DO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AS A BOARD ABOUT ALL THE CITIZENS OF GLAND COUNTY AND NOT ANY INTEREST GROUPS OF GLAND COUNTY AND NOT ANY POLITICAL GROUP OF GLAND COUNTY.
AND THAT'S WHAT I ASKED THIS BOARD TO RETURN TO IS ADDRESSING THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY'S NEED AND NOT THESE OTHER GROUPS.
TODAY I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SITTING IN ON THE TRANSPORTATION MEETING AND I SHARED WITH MR. PETERSON A COMMENT.
UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT DOING A SURVEY AND THE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE BOUGHT A STUDY THAT WAS DONE A FEW YEARS BACK TO THIS BOARD AND IT TALKS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, THE GLAND CARES, UM, DID A STUDY ON HOUSING AND IT TALKS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS.
SO I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO PULL THOSE DOCUMENTS OUT AND LOOK AT WHAT THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS WERE IN THOSE, UM, PARTICULAR STUDIES.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO SAY IS OFTENTIMES WE POST THINGS ONLINE AS A SURVEY.
MANY OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS THAT YOU WILL BE ADDRESSING THEIR NEEDS WILL NOT BE ONLINE LOOKING FOR A SURVEY.
SO I EMPLOY YOU TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER WAY OF GETTING THEIR INPUT INTO THESE SURVEYS.
THEY, YOU CAN HAVE INTERNET UP TO THE CEILING.
THEY WILL NOT GO ONLINE FOR THIS, NOR WILL MANY OF 'EM LIVE ALONE
[00:25:01]
AND DON'T HAVE GRANDCHILDREN THERE TO PULL IT UP FOR THEM.SO I'M ASKING YOU AS A BOY TO LOOK AT DIRECTING YOUR STAFF TO FIND A WAY OF MEETING THOSE NEEDS OF SENIOR CITIZENS WHO OFTEN SHARE WITH ME.
THEY NEED TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE, THEY NEED TO GO TO DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS AND TO GAIN, TO GATHER THEIR INPUT INTO WHATEVER SURVEY THAT YOU WILL BE DOING REGARDING TRANSPORTATION.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I'M CLOSING THE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES, UM, FROM AUGUST 1ST AND SEVENTH.
HOPEFULLY WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT
[VIII. Approval of Action Minutes]
THIS TIME.MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR AUGUST 1ST REGULAR MEETING AND AUGUST 7TH SPECIAL MEETING AS PRESENTED.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE.
UM, I THINK OUR FRIENDS AT READOUT MAY HAVE LEFT.
THEIR REPORT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED, UM, IN
[IX. Reports]
YOUR PACKET.UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY COUNTY STAFF.
[1. 5812: VDOT - August 2023]
HAVE LOTS OF, UH, THE NEXT THREE REPORTS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, THE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND THE SEPTEMBER 5TH BROADBAND REPORT ARE IN YOUR PACKETS AS WELL.UM, BOARD MEMBERS ARE THOSE, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO REPORT FROM YOUR, UH, SELECTED COMMITTEES ON THE T P O? UM, I GAVE A LITTLE UPDATE IN OUR LAST MEETING.
UM, WE HAVE A MEETING THIS THURSDAY, NO MEETING THE FOLLOWING MONTH, AND I THINK NOVEMBER IS OUR LAST SCHEDULED MEETING FOR, FOR THIS CALENDAR YEAR FOR THE T P O.
AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ITEMS I MENTIONED WE DID NOT MEET LAST MONTH.
UM, SO THINGS ARE QUIET, BUT WE HAVE A FEW THINGS ON THE AGENDA THIS THURSDAY AND, UH, LOOK FORWARD TO FINISHING THE YEAR STRONG.
THANK YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THIS BOARD AND THIS COMMUNITY ON THE T P O.
MS. FAR, UH, C B T A, I THINK I MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME, BUT IN CASE I DIDN'T, UM, WE DID ELECT OUR NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, UH, MAYOR LAVAR STONEY FROM RICHMOND, UH, AS THE MAYOR.
AND MR. JOHN HODGES FROM THE TOWN OF ASHLAND WILL BE SERVING AS VICE-CHAIR FOR THE C B T A THIS UPCOMING YEAR.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, UM, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE MOST, MOST OF THE WORK WE HAVE TODAY.
DID, DID THE C B T A SETTLE ON ROTATION OR NO, THEY DID NOT.
DID DID THEY SETTLE ON SOMETHING ELSE? IT'LL JUST BE NOMINATION PROCESS.
NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AFTER
[X. Consent Agenda]
MR. CARPENTER GIVES US A RUNDOWN, WE CAN TAKE A MOTION TO ADDRESS 'EM ALL AS A SLATE OR INDIVIDUALLY.MR. CARPENTER, MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, THE BOARD, YOU DO HAVE THREE ITEMS IN FRONT OF YOU THIS AFTERNOON.
YOUR FIRST ITEM, UH, NUMBER 58 0 1.
OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT SEEKS TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 24 BUDGET TO ALLOCATE A TOTAL OF $55,235 TO THE OPERATING FUND AND 11,550 TO THE SCHOOL FEDERAL GRANTS FUND FOR A TOTAL ALLOCATION OF 66,885.
UH, THIS REQUEST WILL PROVIDE FUNDS FOR SECURITY EQUIPMENT, SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS, SPECIAL EDUCATION, PRESCHOOL CURRICULUM EXPENSES.
ALL OF THESE FUNDS ARE STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDS.
SO THIS REQUEST REQUIRES NO ADDITIONAL LOCAL TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
THIS IS AN ANNUAL THING THAT WE DO.
UH, YOUR NEXT ITEM, UH, NUMBER 57 97.
IN JUNE OF 21, UH, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONED A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT DETAILING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE AND PUBLIC SEWER EXTENSIONS FOR THE EXISTING HUON HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IN SPRING OF 2023.
CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE WATER SYSTEM UPGRADES AND PLANS FOR A LOW PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE THE WASTEWATER NEEDS OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES WAS COMPLETED.
AN INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 30TH OF 23 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM.
THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER WAS GL HOWARD INC.
WITH A BID OF $1,425,000, WHICH IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF COSTS.
ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION IS EXPECTED TO BE AT A FINAL COMPLETION WITHIN 360 DAYS FROM THE FORMAL ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE TO PROCEED STAFF REQUESTS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH J L HOWARD FOR $1,425,000 AND TO ALLOW FOR A CONTINGENCY OF UP TO TWO 200,000.
THE PROJECT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED AND APPROPRIATED IN THE UTILITIES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET, AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE CONTRACT AS TO LEGAL FORM.
AND THEN FINALLY, ITEM NUMBER 58 0 6, UH, BACK IN 22, THE COUNTY PURCHASED APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES OF LAND FOR THE FUTURE SITE OF THE SANDY HOOK FIRE STATION.
[00:30:01]
THE OWNER OF AN ADJACENT 1.5 ACRE PARCEL CONTACTED THE COUNTY TO DETERMINE OUR INTEREST IN PURCHASING THAT PARCEL.TO ADD TO THE FUTURE FIRE STATION SITE, THE REAL PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS 29 13 DOGTOWN ROAD TAX PARCEL 21 DASH ONE DASH ZERO DASH 25 DASH C AND WAS APPRAISED AT A TOTAL OF $222,000.
UH, THE COUNTY SEEKS TO PURCHASE THAT LAND FOR THAT APPRAISED PRICE OF $222,000.
FUNDING FOR THIS PURCHASE WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE C I P.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DRAFTED THE ATTACHED REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND IT, IT'S A LEGAL FORM AND THE SELLER HAS EXECUTED THEIR SIDE OF THE AGREEMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS THE BOARD, THOSE YOUR ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION? THANK YOU MR. CARPENTER BOARD, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE, MR. CHAIRMAN? UM, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ONE THROUGH THREE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PASSING THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEMS ONE THROUGH THREE AS PRESENTED SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
ALRIGHT, THE LAST THING FOR OUR BUSINESS MEETING IS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE.
UM, WE WILL BE, UH, REVIEWING SOME APPOINTMENTS.
[XI. New Business]
WE HAVE A, OUR DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, UM, UH, CORY DANDRICH IS BEING, UH, REPOINT LOOKING TO BE REAPPOINTED FOR A TWO YEAR TERM EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR TO AUGUST 31ST, 2025.THE RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION, UM, IS LOOKING TO REAPPOINT MR. ROBERT WHEATLEY FOR A TWO YEAR TERM EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2023 TO AUGUST 31ST, 2025 AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THAT'S WHERE I GOT MY START.
UM, IS LOOKING TO NOMINATE SAM BABBITT TO A SECOND FIVE YEAR TERM EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1ST, 2023 TO OCTOBER 31ST, 2028.
ANY DISCUSSION? MOTION, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE GLAND COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE THE APPOINTMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER.
UH, UH, WELL JUST CHAIR A SECOND, BUT WITH A CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO, TWO APPOINTMENTS AND ONE NOMINATION.
WE CAN'T APPOINT THE THIRD ONE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE, BUT, UH, OKAY.
AND WOULD YOU, UH, DO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE NOVEMBER APPOINTMENT AS WELL? UH, YES, I WOULD.
DO YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? YES, I ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY MEMBER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR BY SAYING AYE.
OPPOSED? UH, MANY THANKS TO THESE, THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE WILLING TO SERVE OUR COUNTY.
WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT GIVE OF THEIR TIME AND TALENTS, UH, TO HELP US DO WHAT WE DO.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AT THAT.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING PRETTY QUICK HERE.
UM, WE UP UP TO OUR RECESS FOR OUR DINNER BREAK WHERE WE WILL HAVE, UH, WE'LL BE MEET IN THE,
[XII. Dinner Break: 5:00 PM: The Board of Supervisors will have dinner with the Parks and]
THE GYM TO RECOGNIZE MS. SALLY GRAHAM AND HER INDUCTION TO THE, UH, PARKS AND REC WALL OF FAME.[02:00:49]
ALL[02:00:49]
RIGHT.[02:00:51]
READY?[02:00:52]
YES,[02:00:52]
SIR.[02:00:54]
GOOD[02:00:54]
EVENING.[02:00:55]
AND[02:00:55]
WELCOME.[02:00:55]
THANKS[XIII. 6:00 PM - Chair Calls Meeting Back to Order]
[02:00:56]
FOR[02:00:56]
ALL[02:00:56]
YOU[02:00:57]
FOR[02:00:57]
ALL[02:00:57]
COMING[02:00:57]
OUT[02:00:57]
TO THE, UH, OUR MEETING TONIGHT.I AM CALLING BACK TO ORDER THE GLAND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, UH, MEETINGS FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
BUT BEFORE WE START, UH, WE HAVE A SPECIAL HONOR AND GUEST, UM, I'D LIKE MS. GRAHAM TO MEET ME DOWN FRONT.
WE HAVE A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MS. GRAHAM UPON HER INTRODUCTION INTO THE GLAND, COUNTY PARKS AND REC WALL OF FAME, AND MS. BISCH, IF YOU WOULD READ THE RESOLUTION.
WHEREAS MS. SALLY GRAHAM HAS DEMONSTRATED LONGSTANDING DEDICATION AND HUMANITARIAN COMMITMENT TO THE RESIDENTS OF GLAND COUNTY.
AND WHEREAS MS. GRAHAM HAS SERVED AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GLAND CARES FOR THE PAST 23 YEARS.
AND WHEREAS MS. GRAHAM HELPED TO ESTABLISH THE FREE CLINIC IN GLAND, AND WHEREAS MS. GRAHAM WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE MERGER OF GLIN FELLOWSHIP AND FAMILY SERVICES AND THE GLIN FREE CLINIC IN 2007.
AND WHEREAS MS. GRAHAM FOSTERED THE GROWTH OF GLIN CARES TO EXPAND, OFFERING 12 PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY'S RURAL CHALLENGES.
AND WHEREAS MS. GRAHAM LED THE CAPITAL CAMPAIGN TO RAISE FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON A NEW BUILDING FOR ONE STOP SHOP FOR CLIENTS.
AND WHEREAS MS. GRAHAM RAISED OVER 8 MILLION TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING FOR GLAND CARES.
AND WHEREAS MS. GRAHAM OVERSAW THE MOVE INTO THE NEW FACILITY FOR INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY AND WHEREAS GLAND CARES UNDER MS. GRAHAM'S GUIDANCE PROVIDED SERVICES FOR OVER 2,500 NEIGHBORS IN NEED IN 2022.
AND WHEREAS THE GLAND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION HAS ENDORSED MS. GRAHAM FOR INDUCTION INTO THE GLAND COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION WALL OF FAME.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE GLAND COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOES HEREBY RECOGNIZE SALLY GRAHAM FOR HER EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF GLAND COUNTY AND ENDORSES HER INDUCTION INTO THE PARKS AND RECREATION WALL OF FAME.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? YEAH, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I MOVE THAT THE UCHIN COUNTY BOARD, UH, APPROVED THE RESOLUTION, RECOGNIZING MS. SALLY GRAHAM'S INDUCTION INTO THE PARKS AND RECREATION WALL OF FAME.
ANY DISCUSSION? JUST THANK ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
I JUST WANNA SAY A QUICK THANK YOU.
I AM HUMBLED AND HONORED AND CAN THINK OF 50 MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE DESERVING OF THIS THAN I AM.
BUT THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE HERE.
AND, UM, THANK, I JUST WANNA THANK THE COUNTY FOR ALL THAT THEY'VE DONE.
IT DOES REALLY TAKE A VILLAGE TO CREATE THIS KIND OF MOMENTUM AND FULFILL THIS KIND OF MISSION.
AND, UM, IT'S JUST GLAND'S A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT REALLY CARES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL OF OUR CITIZENS.
[02:05:19]
ALL RIGHT.I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD.
[XV. Citizen Comment]
IS FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ISSUES THAT ARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.SO IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE, UH, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M WENDY HOBBS, AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT TWO IN SANDY HOOK.
I JUST HAD A QUESTION THAT I SAW ON THE BOARD, UM, ABOUT YOU CANNOT READ SOMEONE ELSE'S STATEMENT IN PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THAT WASN'T UP AT THE FOUR O'CLOCK MEETING, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT UP AT ANY OTHER MEETING.
SO MY QUESTION, IS THAT A CHANGE OR IN POLICY OR PRECEDENTS? MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OUR POLICY.
SOMETIMES IT HAS SLID THROUGH, BUT WE'VE, THE SLIDE IS NEW.
WE'VE JUST BEEN PUTTING THE SLIDE UP FOR THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS.
IT IS IN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
SO WE CHANGE PRECEDENTS THEN IF IT HAS BEEN IN THERE.
THAT WAS NEW TO ME AND I'VE COME TO THE SEVERAL MEETINGS AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN UP THERE THAT YOU CANNOT READ SOMEBODY'S STATEMENT.
AND I'VE SEEN PEOPLE READ THE STATEMENTS BEFORE THIS BOARD, SO I WAS QUESTIONING THAT.
I LIVE AT 28, UH, 2038 ROCKVILLE ROAD, UH, JUST HERE TONIGHT TO, UH, VOICE.
UM, MY CONCERN OVER THE PROPOSED CENTERVILLE PLAN AND, UM, HOW IT'S AFFECTING THAT SPECIFIC AREA, UH, TO INCLUDE, UM, MY FAMILY AND I, UM, WE MOVED MY WIFE AND, UM, TWO KIDS MOVED OUT HERE, UH, TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRY, ENJOY THE RURAL LIFESTYLE.
UH, THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE OF, UH, CHANGES IN THE PLAN THAT WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT, UM, HOW, HOW WE LIVE.
UM, UH, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THE ECONOMIC ZONE.
IT'S, UH, PROPOSED ACROSS THE STREET.
I BELIEVE IT'S THE PRUITT RANCH.
UM, AND THEN THE PROPOSED GREENWAY THAT WOULD GO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TUCKAHOE CREEK.
UM, OUR PROPERTY BACKS UP TO TUCKAHOE CREEK.
UM, SO SOMETHING WOULD, WOULD HAVE TO GIVE IN THAT REGARD.
UM, I TAKE MY KIDS TO THE CREEK WEEKLY.
UH, WE HAVE A POND THAT WE FISH ON.
UH, AGAIN, JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT, UM, THAT THE, THE LIFESTYLE THAT WE ENJOY AND THE DECISION THAT WE MADE, UH, TO MOVE TO GLAND COUNTY.
SOMEBODY'S LEANING, SOMEBODY'S LEANING AGAINST THE WALL THERE.
THAT THERE WOULD, IT WOULD BE VERY, UH, IMPACTED BY, UH, SEVERAL OF THE, THE PROPOSALS IN THE PLAN.
ANYONE ELSE FOR CITIZEN COMMENT? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD.
UH, THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT FOR
[XVI. Public Hearings]
A DEFERRAL.[1. 5772: District 4 - RZ-2023-00006 Application by Andrew Raymond Moore]
GOOD EVENING.UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR DISTRICT FOUR, THE REZONING, UM, APPLICATION BY RAYMOND MOORE.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A DEFERRAL, UM, UNTIL DECEMBER, INDICATING THAT THEY WISH TO CONDUCT ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING TO TAKE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE COMMUNITY AND WORK TO ADDRESS CONCERNS.
A DATE HAS NOT BEEN SET FOR THE COMMUNITY MEETING.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UM, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD DEFER CONSIDERATION REZONING CASE RZ DASH 2023 DASH SIX FOR 16.059 ACRES ON TAX MAP NUMBER 46 DASH DASH ZERO DASH ONE DASH A FOUR A TWO TO RESIDENTIAL R ONE WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS TO THE DECEMBER BOARD MEETING.
ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL VOTE.
[02:10:02]
MR. PETERSON? YES.GO INTO THE SECOND AGENDA ITEM.
UM, THAT'S, UH, OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, MS. MCGEE.
[2. 5763: Countywide - Ordinance amending County Code Chapter 13 (Taxation),]
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND OF THE PUBLIC.I'M BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO PRESENT AGAIN, AS I DID IN AUGUST, BUT INFORMATION ON A, TO, UH, PREPARE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A NONPROFIT TAX EXEMPTION APPLICATION ORDINANCE THAT IS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
IF YOU WOULD ADVANCE MS. BAITZ, I WANNA START, IF I COULD, WITH THE BIGGER PICTURE OF TAX EXEMPT STATUS, BECAUSE THIS IS AN AREA THAT CAN BE CONFUSING.
IN FACT, OTHER THAN MR. THE BOARD WILL REMEMBER THAT ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, WE STARTED TO EDUCATE, UM, YOURSELF, MY OFFICE, WORKING WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AND THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ABOUT THE STATUS OF TAX EXEMPTIONS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
BECAUSE MANY ORGANIZATIONS HAVE I R S STATUS THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM HAVING TO PAY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES.
UM, BUT IN VIRGINIA, NOT ALL ENTITIES THAT HAVE THAT I R S STATUS ARE EXEMPT FROM REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.
THE TWO TAXES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IN FACT, THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION HAS SEVERAL EXEMPTIONS WRITTEN INTO IT.
GENERALLY, I'LL TELL YOU, SCHOOLS AND THEN CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES.
AND THEN THERE'S A CATEGORY THAT ENDS UP BEING SORT OF A, A NUMBER OF OTHER NONPROFITS AND THEY END UP BEING BY EITHER CLASSIFICATION OR DESIGNATION.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU A A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THOSE THREE CATEGORIES.
SCHOOLS ARE, ARE SORT OF LUMPED IN WITH LIBRARIES AND THEY ALSO SAY IT HAS TO BE FOR, YOU KNOW, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES AND SO FORTH.
BUT IF WE GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES AS WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHT THAT WE ARE STARTING SOMETHING NEW.
THAT, THAT, THAT WE'RE CREATING A NEW LAW.
AND WHILE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE, I'M ASKING YOU TO DO, I WANNA START WITH THE GENESIS OF THIS.
SO UNDER THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION, UH, IN TAX EXEMPTION, IT STARTS THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY.
AND NO OTHER SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION STATE AND LOCAL, INCLUDING INHERITANCE TAXES.
AND THEN I'VE INCLUDED THE EXACT LANGUAGE FROM THE SECTION TWO UNDER THAT REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED AND EXCLUSIVELY OCCUPIED OR USED BY CHURCHES OR RELIGIOUS BODIES FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OR FOR THE RESIDENCES OF THEIR MINISTERS.
SO THAT'S THAT SECOND CATEGORY, UM, CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES.
NEXT, THE THIRD CATEGORY, THIS IS NOT AT ALL QUOTED FROM THE CONSTITUTION, BUT ONCE YOU APPLY ALL THE STATE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN THIS OVER THE YEARS, WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED TO YOU ALL, BUT IN THE PAST IS THAT A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION BY CLASSIFICATION OR DESIGNATION CAN GET THE EXEMPTION FROM LOCAL REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.
AND THE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE THINGS LIKE VOLUNTEER FIRE AND E M SS, AMERICAN LEGION BOY SCOUTS.
THOSE ARE WRITTEN INTO STATE LAW TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A, A CLASSIFICATION EXEMPTION.
AND THERE ARE FIVE GLAND ORGANIZATIONS WHO RECEIVED A SPECIFIC DESIGNATION FOR THEIR ORGANIZATION, UM, BACK WHEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WAS DOING THIS.
AND THEY ARE ALL LISTED THERE.
SO THAT'S THE CATEGORIES FOR THESE OTHER NONPROFITS NOW.
AND THERE ARE, THERE ARE MORE THAN, THERE'S ABOUT 16 OF THE ONES FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE AND ALL THAT.
UM, THERE WASN'T REALLY QUITE ENOUGH ROOM.
AND SO I'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PART JUST TO MAKE SORT OF TWO POINTS TO YOU ALL.
AND THAT IS THAT KNOWING THE I R S INCOME TAX DESIGNATION OF AN ORGANIZATION IS ONLY ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION BECAUSE THAT DESIGNATION IS BROADER THAN WHAT VIRGINIA LAW ALLOWS FOR EXEMPTIONS FROM PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY.
SO IT'S NOT JUST ENOUGH TO BE A 5 0 1 C THREE IN VIRGINIA FOR LOCAL TAXES.
AND THEN I WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THEN HAVE TO BE? WELL, YOU EITHER HAVE TO BE A, A SCHOOL, A CHURCH, OR ONE OF THESE DESIGNATED OR CATEGORIZED ORGANIZATIONS.
AND THE LANGUAGE THAT I READ FROM THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS, YOUR PROPERTY HAS TO BE IN USE FOR YOUR PURPOSES, THAT I READ IT WITH RESPECT TO CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES, BUT IT APPLIES TO EVERY CATEGORY AND ORGANIZATION.
UH, POTENTIALLY THE ONLY ONE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT IS THE STATE, UM, WHICH I DIDN'T LIST.
'CAUSE THEY NEVER PAY US TAXES
SO THOSE ARE WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION AND STATE
[02:15:01]
LAW TO HAVE A LOCAL TAX, UM, UH, EXEMPTION.AND I JUST LIKE TO MAKE THAT CLEAR BECAUSE AGAIN, A LOT OF US GO ONLY SO FAR AS IT'S A 5 0 1 C THREE, OR IT'S GOT AN I R S LETTER.
IT, IT RECEIVED AN I R S TAX EXEMPTION.
SO IT IS JUST IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN VIRGINIA, THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S LAID OUT FOR LOCAL TAXES.
SO I WANTED YOU AND, AND RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND THAT STRUCTURE.
UM, WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN APPLICATION, A, A REQUEST THAT YOU ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR AN APPLICATION PROCESS.
AND WHY, WHY ARE WE INTERESTED IN THAT? WHY HAVE WE ASKED YOU FOR IT? AND I SAY WE, BECAUSE OF COURSE IT'S THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE IN THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICES WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF THESE EXEMPTIONS.
AND THIS IS THE TEAM THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS, UM, IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
WELL, WE START WITH ONE THING, WHICH IS FOR THE OTHER TAX RELIEF AND TAX EXEMPTIONS THAT THE COUNTY GRANTS.
THERE IS IN FACT AN APPLICATION PROCESS.
YOU HAVE TO, WHETHER YOU'RE IN THE LAND USE PROGRAM TO GET THAT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED TAX, WHETHER YOU HAVE AN ELDERLY OR DISABLED, UH, TAX RELIEF, EVEN OUR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS HAVE TO BE ELIGIBLE EVERY YEAR TO GET THEIR REDUCED TAX RATE.
SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER TAX EXEMPTIONS.
UM, TODAY, AND, AND GOLAND COUNTY HAS SOME RECORDS ON TAX EXEMPT PROPERTIES TODAY.
THE HANDBOOK CONTAINS THE PARCEL NUMBER, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THAT IT'S BEEN CARRIED AS TAX EXEMPT.
THOSE THREE PIECES OF INFORMATION ARE IN THE HANDBOOK THAT OUR ASSESSOR USES, AND SHE'S BEEN GOING ALONG WITH WHAT SHE RECEIVED WHEN SHE TOOK OFFICE, IF IT WAS CALLED TAX EXEMPT.
BUT WHAT SHE DOESN'T HAVE IS ANY DOCUMENTATION TO UNDERSTAND.
NOW, FOR, FOR MOST OF THEM, THEY MIGHT HAVE CHURCH IN THE, IN THE NAME, THEY MAY WELL BE SOMETHING LIKE THE Y M C A, UH, YOU KNOW, SHE CAN SEE WHERE IT MIGHT FALL, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER TAX EXEMPT PROGRAMS, YOU ALSO CAN LOOK AT SOME OF OUR OTHER LOCALITIES.
IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO HAVE THIS ORDINANCE, NOT THAT WE LIKE TO BE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, MR. VADERS, WE, YOU USUALLY LIKE US TO BE WELL IN ADVANCE OF THEM.
AND IT'S NOT JUST THE LARGER ONES IN CHESTERFIELD, HENRICO HANOVER, THE CITY OF RICHMOND, AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS HAS BEEN IN LOUISA AND IS AND IS TODAY IN CULPEPPER AS WELL.
SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT OUTSIDE THE NORM.
THERE ARE MANY OF THESE ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT I COMPARE US TO LOUDOUN COUNTY OR ROANOKE CITY, BUT CERTAINLY WITHIN OUR REGION AND IN OTHER PLACES.
UM, AND SO WHAT WE, THE STAFF HAD, UM, FOUGHT, AND THE REASON WE'RE BRINGING IT FORWARD IS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO BE GOOD STEWARD OF PUBLIC FUNDS, WHICH IS VALUE OF THIS COUNTY, IN ORDER TO BE TRANSPARENT, WHICH IS AYA, THIS COUNTY, WE JUST SHOULD HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION IN OUR RECORDS AS SIMPLE AS WE CAN BE TO PROVE THAT THIS ENTITY THAT OWNS THIS PROPERTY IS ENTITLED TO A TAX EXEMPTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAWS.
UM, I'VE MENTIONED THAT WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A WHILE NOW.
WE'VE BEEN BRIEFING YOU ALL ABOUT OTHER ASPECTS OF TAX, UH, EXEMPTIONS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, BUT WE DIDN'T BECO GO PUBLIC TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND RESIDENTS ON THIS PROCESS UNTIL APRIL WITH NOTIFICATION THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE ARE INTERESTED IN AND THAT WE MIGHT BE DOING.
THAT BEING SAID, APRIL IS SEVERAL MONTHS AWAY FROM NOW.
IT'S A LOT MORE THAN JUST A REQUEST TO SET IN THE PAPER.
AND, AND A NOTICE IN, IN MY SEVEN YEARS HERE, THE ONLY ORDINANCE I'VE DONE MORE PUBLIC OUTREACH FOR WAS REDISTRICTING.
AND THAT'S ONLY EVERY 10 YEARS.
SO, UM, BUT WE STARTED IN APRIL WITH, AGAIN, THE ASSESSOR HAS THE PARCEL NUMBER AND THE OWNER'S NAME.
SO WE SENT OUT LETTERS, MAILED LETTERS, FIRST CLASS MAIL, UM, TO ABOUT 75 DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE LISTED AS HAVING TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY.
AND THAT FIRST LETTER TOLD THEM, WE'D LIKE TO CALL YOU IN AND TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE DOING, ASK YOU QUESTIONS, HEAR FROM YOU, TELL YOU, UM, ABOUT IT.
SO ON MAY 25TH, WE ACTUALLY HAD THAT STAKEHOLDER MEETING.
WE HAD, UM, OUR GREAT COMMUNICATION STAFF POP THAT MEETING OUT IN SOME NEWS FLASH AND SOCIAL MEDIA TO TRY AND LET SOME FOLKS KNOW.
WE HAD ABOUT 40 PEOPLE ATTEND AND WE LEARNED A LOT.
UH, THEY LEARNED WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE LEARNED A LOT.
WE VIDEOTAPED THAT MEETING AND AFTER THE MEETING WE POSTED IT TO THE COUNTY WEBSITE.
SO THAT, AND WE DON'T DO THAT WITH EVERY COMMUNITY MEETING, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS AS THEY CAME ALONG.
UM, AT THE DAY OF THAT MEETING, WE DID HAVE A PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
WE ALSO HAD AN APPLICATION THAT WE HAD COME UP WITH BASED ON MANY OR APPLICATIONS WE'D SEEN ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH.
AND IT WAS EIGHT PAGES LONG AND WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THAT IS TOO MUCH.
IT IS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR GLAND, AND IT'S TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON OUR NONPROFITS.
AND EVEN IN THE MEETING, THE TEAM AND THE STAFF WAS RESPONSIVE TO THAT AND SAID, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.
WE'RE NOT GONNA COME BACK AT YOU WITH THIS EIGHT PAGE ORDINANCE APPLICATION.
[02:20:01]
DECREASING THE, UM, APPLICATION ON CREATING, UH, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FROM THE QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE ASKED AT THE, UH, MEETING.AND ON JULY 5TH, WE MAILED AGAIN, FIRST CLASS MAIL TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF ALL TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY, THE ORDINANCE, THE REVISED APPLICATION, NOW ONLY FOUR PAGES.
AND THOSE FAQS, THOSE THREE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE.
AND TO THE MEETING ATTENDEES WHO GAVE US EMAIL ADDRESSES, AGAIN ABOUT 40, WE EMAILED IT TO THEM AS WELL.
WE KNEW WE HAD TO HAD INFORMATION TO REACH YOU.
UM, IN JULY, AUGUST, UM, I HAD MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS WHO ASKED FOR, FOR, EXCUSE ME, INCLUDING, UM, GLAND CARES, UH, THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DOVER BAPTIST CHURCH.
UM, JUST FRIDAY I MET WITH SOME FOLKS FROM THE JERUSALEM BAPTIST CHURCH AND THE GLAND REC CENTER.
IN ADDITION TO ME THOUGH, QUESTIONS WERE BEING TAKEN AT THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, THE COMMISSIONER REVENUE'S OFFICE, WE WERE TRYING TO ANSWER INFORMATION.
IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS WE DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO, WE GOT TOGETHER AND FIGURED OUT THE ANSWERS.
AND SO ON AUGUST 5TH, WE THEN HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE YOU LAST, UH, LAST MONTH.
AND WE LEARNED MORE EVEN THEN, BOTH FROM THE BOARD, HOW YOU FELT ABOUT THE ORDINANCE AND SOME INFORMATION BEING ASKED IN THE APPLICATION AND FROM STAKEHOLDERS WHO SPOKE AT THAT MEETING.
AND SO WE WENT BACK AS A TEAM AND PULLED TOGETHER AND WE REVISED THE APPLICATION.
WE'VE REMOVED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
WE DECIDED THE BEST THING TO DO FOR CHURCHES OR RELIGIOUS BODIES WAS TO CREATE A SEPARATE APPLICATION.
BECAUSE AS TO THEM, THE ONLY ONE LIKE THIS, THE LAW DOESN'T CARE WHAT THEIR PURPOSE IS.
OKAY? BUT WHETHER IT'S SCHOOLS OR ALL THESE OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, PURPOSE IS USING IT IN IN WHAT THEIR PURPOSE IS MATTERS.
AND SO WE JUST CREATED SEPARATE APPLICATIONS AND LISTENING TO THE FACT THAT CHURCHES OFTEN DON'T HAVE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE, WE BACKED OFF AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE NOT GONNA ASK YOU FOR ANYTHING.
WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE MORE WORK.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO INVADE THE PRIVACY OF YOUR, UM, ORGANIZATION, YOUR CHURCH.
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT SIGNIFICANT, UM, ELEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN, UH, BY AUGUST 25TH, WE THEN ME MAILED OUT THE REVISED, UH, EXCUSE ME, AND THIS WE ONLY DID BY EMAIL.
WE HAD ALREADY MAILED TWICE, BUT BY EMAIL ON AUGUST 25TH, WE EMAILED OUT REVISED APPLICATIONS, REVISED FAQS, AND AGAIN, THE ORDINANCE.
SO WE USE THIS PROCESS REALLY TO BE LISTEN TO THE STAKEHOLDERS AND TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THEIR CONCERNS BECAUSE STAFF WANTS TO BALANCE A DESIRE TO BE TRANSPARENT AND, UH, ABOUT TAX EXEMPTIONS WITH RESPECTING THE PRIVACY AND THE RESOURCES OF OUR COMMUNITY.
THESE ORGANIZATIONS DO A SO MUCH GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR RESIDENTS.
SO WE REALLY WANTED TO HIT THAT BALANCE AND KEPT TRYING TO DO THAT.
SO WHAT ARE WE ASKING TONIGHT? WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? THE, UM, FIRST OF ALL, UM, IF YOU GO BACK, JUST ONE THANKS.
I AM ACTUALLY ASKING YOU ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM FOR YOU TO, THAT WE PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE THIS EVENING.
IT, COPIES OF IT ARE AVAILABLE ON THE DAIS, AND THERE WERE, UH, 30 OR SO ON THE BACK, UH, TABLES.
AND THE AMENDMENT IS THAT THIS ORDINANCE WILL APPLY FOR TAX EXEMPTIONS STARTING WITH CALENDAR YEAR 2025.
AND OUR REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO ASK YOU TO ADOPT THAT ORDINANCE AS AMENDED.
WHY? BECAUSE STAFF WANTS TO CONTINUE TO MEET WITH THE AFFECTED STAKE STAKEHOLDERS, UH, TO EDUCATE THEM, TO WORK WITH THEM, AND TO CONTINUE TO REVISE THE INFORMATION OR THE APPLICATION THAT WE'D SEEK.
NOW, THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND APPLICATION WE ALL LEARNED WAS WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION.
UM, BUT WE'VE DECREASED THAT AS WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH.
AND EVEN ON FRIDAY, THERE WERE SOME GOOD CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO THE APPLICATION.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET BECAUSE THAT I FINISHED AT FOUR 30 FRIDAY AND THIS IS THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
UM, BUT SOME GOOD THINGS THAT THE TEAM IS STILL INTERESTED AND WILLING TO ADOPT.
THE BIGGEST REMAINING CONCERN FROM ALL THAT I'VE LEARNED, AND EVEN FROM THE EMAILS THAT YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED AND FORWARDED ON TO ME, IS THAT THERE IS VACANT LAND OWNED BY A NUMBER OF CHURCHES.
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES HAVE VACANT LAND, WHICH IF IT'S NOT IN USE BY THE CHURCH, WOULD IN FACT BECOME TAXABLE UNDER THE LAW.
THAT'S WHAT THE CONS VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION SAID.
BUT WE FEEL THAT STAFF CAN EDUCATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THEIR OPTIONS OVER THE COURSE.
IF YOU DELAY THIS, UM, UM, WHEN IT WILL COME INTO PLAY FOR TAX EXEMPTIONS, THEY COULD DETERMINE THAT THEY'RE GONNA ACTUALLY USE THOSE PIECES OF PARCELS.
THEY COULD PUT SOME TRAILS ON THEM AND HAVE THE YOUTH GROUP GO OVER.
THEY MAY HAVE THEIR SUNDAY MORNING EASTER
[02:25:01]
SERVICE THERE, THAT THERE ARE WAYS THAT THEY COULD LEARN TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S DO SOMETHING WITH IT SO THAT WE'RE NOT TAXED ON IT, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO EDUCATE THEM ABOUT THAT.ALSO, SOME OF THE VACANT PROPERTY COULD WELL BE ELIGIBLE FOR LAND USE, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED TAX BURDEN.
I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO OUR ASSESSOR TO EXACTLY WHAT THAT GOES TO.
BUT AS, AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION, THEY ALSO WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL THE PROPERTY IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, NOT SAYING SNAP IT UP, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION, SEE IF THEY COULD SELL IT, OR THEY MIGHT DECIDE THAT THEY DO, IN FACT WANNA KEEP IT, AND THEY WOULD NEED TO RAISE SOME MONEY FOR THE TAXES.
WHAT'S CAN MATTERS TO THE STAFF IS WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO A GOTCHA.
YOU, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO GO OUT AND SNAP UP TAX MONEY FROM THESE VACANT PARCELS.
WE ARE MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN HELPING OUR, UH, STAKEHOLDERS GET TO THE POSITION THEY'D LIKE TO BE IN, WHETHER THAT'S SELLING THE LAND FOR VALUE OR FINDING A WAY TO KEEP IT TAX EXEMPT OR SUBJECT TO A VERY REDUCED TEXT.
SO IN STAFF'S OPINION, THIS DELAY WOULD ALLOW THOSE ENTITIES TO LEARN ABOUT AND DECIDE WHAT THEY WANNA DO.
AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT WHEN I MET WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS ON FRIDAY, THEY SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU JUST ASK THIS BOARD TO DEFER THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE TO NEXT YEAR AND NOT ADOPT IT YET? AND WE GAVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THAT OPTION.
AND THERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY THAT'S NOT THE OPTION I'VE ASKED YOU TO CONSIDER ON BEHALF OF STAFF TONIGHT.
THE FIRST IS WE HAVE ENGAGED IN A TWO YEAR EDUCATION PROCESS.
AND FOLKS, I DON'T MEAN TO SAY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT EVERY WEEK, OKAY? I JUST MEAN THAT OVER THE COURSE OF AS TIME ALLOWED, IT'S COME UP AT I THINK THREE DIFFERENT MEETINGS WHERE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, EDUCATING THE BOARD ON, ON ISSUES.
UM, AND SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE ACTUALLY ASKED THE BOARD ABOUT ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE, I THINK ALMOST A YEAR AGO AT THE END OF A A, A TWO BY TWO MEETING.
WE TALKED TO EVERYBODY ABOUT THAT.
SO WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT WITH THIS BOARD WHO WE'VE BROUGHT ALONG THAT JOURNEY AND EDUCATED ABOUT.
AND THE OTHER THING IS, IF YOU DEFER THIS, THEN THERE IS SOME CONCERN.
I HAVE THE CONCERN, IT MAY NOT BE VALID, YOU ALL CAN DETERMINE THAT, BUT WHETHER THE ENTITIES WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO TRY AND OPPOSE ADOPTION OF IT, INSTEAD OF MAYBE USING IT TO MAKE PLANS FOR, OKAY, IT'S GOING TO COME.
WHAT'S THE BEST THING WE CAN DO TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH IT? I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST MY SENSE.
AND AS I TALK TO THE TEAM TODAY, OUR, OUR CONSENSUS WAS TO ASK YOU TO ADOPT IT IN THIS WAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HURRY UP, WE GOTTA DO IT THIS YEAR.
IT'S JUST TO MAKE A, A BETTER, MORE TRANSPARENT PROCESS TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND SO THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, THAT, THAT FOLKS ARE AWARE OF IS, AGAIN, I'M, I'M A MOUTHPIECE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WORKING ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.
BUT THIS IS THE TEAM, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE.
THEY'VE ALSO BEEN TAKING QUESTIONS AND MEETING WITH FOLKS.
UM, THAT'S WHO FOLKS WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE HANDLING THIS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS.
AND OUR ASSESSOR, MARYANNE DAVIS, IS IN THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING.
I DON'T KNOW IF BRIDGET, UH, CARRINGTON IS HERE.
UM, I WASN'T SURE IF SHE WAS GONNA BE ABLE TO ATTEND THIS EVENING.
AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL SIMPLY SAY, AS ALWAYS, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AT THIS TIME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM.
OR IF THEY COME UP LATER, OF COURSE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. MCGEE AT THIS TIME BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? MS. LASETTE? UH, MS. MCGEE, WOULD YOU MIND GOING BACK, I THINK IT WAS ONE OF YOUR FIRST SLIDES, UM, THE, THE ISSUE WITH THE, UH, VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION VERSUS VIRGINIA LAW.
WOULD YOU GO BACK THROUGH THAT? YES.
DO YOU WANT THE, THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE ACTUAL CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
THAT'S THE BROADEST, UH, THAT IT IS FOR CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE IT IN USE IN SOME FORM, UM, LIES.
SO IT SAYS THAT THE, THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY AND NO OTHER SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION STATE AND LOCAL, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
MR.
SO ONE OF THE CO UH, AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING, WE DEFERRED THIS IN PART BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE, AT LEAST THE ONES THAT WERE EXPRESSED AT THE MEETING WERE IN INTRUSIVENESS WITH THE LENGTH OF THE APPLICATION.
SO WE'VE CURBED THE LENGTH OF THE APPLICATION TO GATHER, UH, MINIMUM INFORMATION.
AND, AND AS YOU JUST SAID, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY NON-PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION FROM ANY OF THE CHURCHES.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD SINCE THAT LAST MEETING THOUGH, IS WE, IT WOULD'VE BEEN HELPFUL IF THE COUNTY HAD NOTIFIED PEOPLE
[02:30:01]
OF, OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE DOING THIS.AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT, AND WHAT I'VE HEARD, IT'S EASY TO LOOK UP ON THE I R S WEBSITE, ALL THE EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
BUT WHAT YOU JUST EXPLAINED IS THE ONES ELIGIBLE FOR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION IS A SMALLER SUBSET THAN EVERY 5 0 1 C ORGANIZATION.
IS THAT OKAY? SO IT WOULD'VE, IT SOUNDS TO ME IT WOULD'VE BEEN MORE CONFUSING IF WE SENT OUT A MESSAGE TO ALL 5 0 1.
WELL, F A FINDING, FINDING OUT THE ORGANIZATIONS, YOU CAN LOOK UP BY CITY.
YOU CAN'T LOOK UP BY COUNTY ON THE I R SS WEBSITE.
BUT IF WE LOOKED UP OSELAND AND SANDY HOOK AND KENT STORE AND MAIDENS AND ALL THOSE THINGS, WE COULD MAYBE GET AN IDEA OF ALL THE 5 0 1 C THREES.
BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME IT WOULD BE VERY CONFUSING IF WE SENT A MESSAGE TO EVERYBODY BECAUSE THEY'RE, THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE EXEMPT.
SO THERE'S A NOTIFICATION CONCERN.
NOW MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS? YOU, YOU'VE ASKED US NOW TO DEFER THIS, UM, UNTIL CALENDAR YEAR 2025, NOT TO DEFER IT, BUT TO PASS IT WITH A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2025 CALENDAR YEAR.
WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MEANTIME? AND SOMEBODY'S LEANING IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, I THINK OF THE LEANING THE GREEN SHIRT THERE.
SO WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS NOW AND IN THE MEANTIME, AND I THINK WHAT YOU SAID AND WHAT SOME EMAILS WE'VE SEEN AND IN, IN MY LAW PRACTICE, I KNOW PEOPLE WILL LEAVE PROPERTY TO A CHURCH.
SO IF THAT HAPPENS TODAY, IF SOMEBODY PASSES AWAY AND LEAVES A, A PARCEL OF LAND TO A CHURCH, WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO THAT, IF YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO THAT? RIGHT NOW WE KNOW IF WE PASS THIS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
THERE'S NO APPLICATION PROCESS.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS AS FAR AS YOU, YOU MAY KNOW, UM, I, I MAY NEED THE MARYANNE, UH, DAVIS, THE ASSESSOR TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE FOR THAT.
I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT SHE'S DONE YESTERDAY OR WHAT SHE WOULD DO TOMORROW ABOUT IT.
AND I, AND I THINK IF, IF SOME, IF I OWNED PROPERTY, IF I THE MIC GIVE YOU, YEAH, TURN ON THE MICROPHONE THERE.
WHEN YOU, IF I, IF I OWN PROPERTY AND THEN I LEAVE IT TO A CHURCH, OF COURSE IT WAS PROBABLY TAXED WHEN I OWNED IT.
HOW DOES YOUR OFFICE, I MEAN, I GUESS YOU'RE GONNA CONTINUE TAXING IT OR AT THIS, OR HOW DO YOU HANDLE IT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME? WE HAVE NOT.
UH, THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT, UM, MAYBE 25 PROPERTIES THAT ARE, UH, VACANT AND WE HAVE EXEMPT.
AND, UM, WHAT I PLAN TO DO IS TO TAKE THOSE PROPERTIES AND LOOK AT THEM FURTHER IF THEY'RE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED OR NOT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN BE TAXED OR NOT, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO, SO THE WAY IT HAPPENS NOW, IF I PASS AND LEAVE MY PROPERTY TO A CHURCH, YOU OBVIOUSLY SEE THAT THE OWNERSHIP HAS CHANGED WHEN THE INFORMATION GETS TRANSFERRED FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO YOUR OFFICE.
RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S THE PARTICULAR, AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.
BUT IT HAS BEEN ON OUR RADAR TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK IT BECAUSE OF WHAT THE CODE SAYS.
WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CHECK IT? IF, IF I LEAVE IT TO A CHURCH AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE NAME I LEFT IT TO IS A CHURCH, DOES THAT MEAN YOUR OFFICE HAS NOT BEEN, YOU JUST STOPPED TAXING IT AT THAT POINT WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION? THAT'S PRETTY MUCH, YEAH.
SO REALLY NOTHING, IF WE, WE ADOPT THIS, NOTHING'S REALLY GOING TO CHANGE IN TERMS OF A CHURCH FINDING THEMSELVES SUDDENLY WITH A TAX LIABILITY THAT THEY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE.
THAT'S WHY THE YEAR I BELIEVE MS. MCGEE, UH, IS, UH, IS IN THERE SO THAT WE CAN CONTACT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS.
UH, FIRST I WOULD PROBABLY CHECK WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO SEE IF THEY ARE TRULY DEVELOPABLE.
UM, AND IF THEY ARE, THEN GET WITH THE PROPERTY OR GET WITH THE CHURCH TO FIND OUT, OKAY, WHAT ARE THE PLANS? IF YOUR PLANS, IF YOU'VE GOT PLANS OR IN MINUTES OR SOMETHING TO SAY, THIS PIECE IS GOING TO BE AN EXPANSION OF OUR CEMETERY, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
UM, BUT IF, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT HAS 34 ACRES, IT'S ALL FOREST, UM, COULD GO INTO THE LAND USE PROGRAM.
BUT WHEN YOU GOT SMALLER PIECES, TWO ACRE PIECES, THREE ACRE PIECES, UH, IN A MARKET WHERE WE HAVE SO MUCH DEMAND FOR THAT, UH, LAND, YOU COULD, IT, IT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS JUST A REALLY A KIND OF A HIGH TURNOVER.
UH, SO IF THEY PUT IT ON THE MARKET, THEY COULD SELL IT.
IF IT IS DEVELOPABLE, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD CONFIRM THAT FIRST.
AND SHIFTING BACK TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PERSONAL PROPERTY, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THIS AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING, PERSONAL PROPERTY, THIS WHOLE EFFORT IS FOCUSED ON, UM, A CAR VEHICLES.
ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE NONPROFITS, UM, WE, WE PRESUME IS USED IN THEIR NONPROFIT PURPOSE AND IS TAX EXEMPT.
THE ONLY THING THAT THERE HAS, THERE ARE RECORDS OF ARE VEHICLES TITLES.
AND WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE HAS FOUND A VEHICLE, FOR INSTANCE, TITLED PERHAPS IN THE NAME OF A NONPROFIT, BUT ALSO AN INDIVIDUAL
[02:35:01]
THAT THAT WOULD, IN THEIR MINDS TAKE IT OUT OF IMMEDIATE ELIGIBILITY, THEY CONTACT THE, THE ENTITY AND LET THEM KNOW, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THAT OTHER PERSON'S NAME OFF AND THEN IT WILL BE TAX EXEMPT, BUT YOU, YOU CAN'T LEAVE IT THAT OTHER PERSON'S NAME ON IT AND STILL HAVE IT BE TAX EXEMPT.SO AGAIN, THAT'S JUST THE COMMISSIONER TRYING TO HELP OUR NONPROFITS KEEP THEIR PROPERTY NON-TAXABLE.
THAT'S WHAT THE GOAL HAS BEEN.
FRANKLY, THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT AS A GOAL.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THE SAME RULES, YOU GOT THREE MINUTES AND PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, I'M WENDY HOBB, STILL LIVING IN THE SAME PLACE IN SANDY HOOK IN DISTRICT TWO.
UM, I WANNA SAY THAT YOUR STAFF HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD AT MEETING WITH PEOPLE.
WE MET WITH THE, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, I THINK ABOUT TWO HOURS FRIDAY TO DISCUSS THE CONCERNS.
UM, THE, WHAT WE WERE TOLD AND WHAT YOU ALL WERE TOLD IN THE AUGUST MEETING IS THAT THIS WAS TO COME IN LINE WITH EXEMPT, UM, OTHER PROGRAMS THAT YOU HAVE IN THE COUNTY THAT GET REDUCED OR EXEMPT TAX STATUS.
THE ONLY THING ABOUT THE SENIOR CITIZEN OR THE DISABLED IS THAT YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT EVERY YEAR AND YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL RECORDS TO VERIFY THE NEED FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, AND I HEARD MS. MCGEE TALK ABOUT, AND I HEARD MS. DAVIS AND HOW MS. DAVIS, I DON'T THINK I MET YOU.
UM, TALK ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED MS. LAMBKIN ABOUT SOMEONE WILLING YOU LAYING, AND THAT OFTEN HAPPENS IN OUR CHURCHES.
UM, WHAT WE WERE TOLD THOUGH, IF THAT PROPERTY IS NOT ACTIVELY BEING USED, IT IS TAXABLE.
TONIGHT, WE'RE KIND OF HEARING A LITTLE DIFFERENT HERE, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD.
THE OTHER THING ABOUT THREE YEARS, UH, NOT KNOWING MS. MCGEE SHARED THAT YOU HAVE YOUR TAX BOOKS THAT HAVE IDENTIFIED ALL THE TAX ARE EXEMPT PROPERTIES THAT 75 LETTERS OR COMMUNICATIONS WENT OUT.
SO YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
NOW, IF YOU ARE SAYING WE WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE THAT INFORMATION, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD BE OPPOSED TO GIVING AN UPDATE OF WHO THE PASTOR IS OR EMAIL OR A PHONE NUMBER.
BUT WHAT WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IS THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
AND UNFORTUNATELY YOU GUYS, FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD, DOES NOT DO NOT SET THE APPLICATION STANDARDS.
AND WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS IN THIS APPLICATION, IT TALKS ABOUT PROVIDING INCOME DERIVED FROM RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT THE CHURCH OR AN ORGANIZATION MAY BE GETTING AND PROVIDING AN ANNUAL REPORT ON THAT THAT'S DIPPING INTO THE CHURCH FINANCES OR THE NONPROFITS FINANCES.
MOST NONPROFITS ARE ALREADY FILING NINE 90.
SO THAT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED, BUT THE CHURCHES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDING ANY FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
SO OUR CONCERN IS REALLY WHAT'S ON THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU ALL WILL BE APPROVING THE APPLICATION, BUT YOU'RE NOT APPROVING WHAT WE ARE GETTING.
AND SO WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, THE DEFERRAL.
I I THINK THAT, UM, THE DEFERRAL WOULD BE WELCOME BECAUSE WE NEED TO GO BACK OUT TO THESE ENTITIES AND EXPLAIN THE, HOW YOU CAN MEET THE STANDARD TO PEOPLE.
AND BY VOTING TONIGHT, THAT WILL NOT GIVE, THAT, IT'LL GIVE THE COUNTY STAFF THE PERMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICATION, WHICH CAN CHANGE AS WE HAVE SEEN IT CHANGE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
SO WE ASK THAT YOU DEFER IT SO THAT YOU CAN MEET BACK WITH THE CHURCHES, MEET BACK WITH THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND SAY, THIS IS HOW IT'S GONNA BE ADDRESSED.
MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND THIS BEFORE YOU MAKE IT A LAW BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A LAW.
BUT IF THIS APPLICATION IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON, THEN THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THIS APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE REAL CONCERNS WITH WHEN IT DI ENCROACHES INTO THE CHURCH'S BUSINESS MINUTES AND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE CHURCH.
SO WE'RE ASKING YOU, UM, TO DEFER IT, LET YOUR STAFF COME BACK AND TALK WITH THESE 75 ENTITIES AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND WE HAVEN'T DONE IT IN A HUNDRED YEARS.
SO IF YOU HAVE TO DEFER IT FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, I MEAN, YOU'VE BEEN DOING
[02:40:01]
WELL SO FAR.ANYONE ELSE? HELLO? UM, EMMANUEL HARRISON, THE PASTOR, JERUSALEM.
I MET WITH MS. MCGEE ON FRIDAY.
UM, SO I'LL BE QUICK 'CAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE, UM, EMAIL AND I DO SEE A LOT OF WHAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ALREADY.
UM, AND ALSO THE LOCAL AND THIS POLICIES, UM, APPARENTLY HE RIGHT HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS,
SO IT'S SO OLD THAT, AND IT SEAMLESS I GUESS, THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT IT'S BEING DONE.
UM, BUT, UM, MY MAIN CONCERN WAS FINANCIAL IMPACT.
UM, AND BEING THAT, UM, CHURCHES ARE COMING OUT OF A PANDEMIC AND I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BE TOLD NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE IT MAY, IF YOU HAVE PROPERTY, UM, THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO YOU AND IT'S NOT BEING USED, YOU MAY GET A TAX BILL.
UM, IF YOU HAVE A PARSONAGE THAT'S NOT BEING OCCUPIED BY YOUR MINISTER, IT MAY CHANGE.
WELL, IT'S GONNA BE A FINANCIAL IMPACT.
AND SOME CHURCHES CAN'T FIX THAT READILY BECAUSE OFTENTIMES MINISTERS ARE COMING FROM OTHER PLACES TO PREACH IN THE CHURCH, SO THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO LIVE IN THE PARSONAGE.
OR IF YOU'RE IN BETWEEN PASTORS, UM, THEN YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO JUST FEEL THE PULPIT WITH SOMEBODY SO THAT THERE MAY BE A TAX IMPLICATION.
SO I JUST WANTED ALL CHURCHES TO UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON YOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, ON YOUR ORGANIZATION AND MANY OF US IN THE LAND, UM, GIVING UP LAND AND ALL THAT.
IT IS JUST A LOT OF HISTORY THERE.
PEOPLE OFTEN WILL LANDS TO CHURCHES LIKE JERUSALEM HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1880.
LAND HAS BEEN IN, YOU KNOW, IN THE COMMUNITY, IN THE CHURCH FOR A LONG TIME.
SO IT'S NOT JUST WILLING TO JUST TURN IT OVER TO THE COUNTY OR SELL IT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A LOT OF HISTORY THERE.
UM, AND I'M SURE I'M, I'M NOT SPEAKING JUST FOR JERUSALEM.
I'M SPEAKING FOR A LOT OF CHURCHES.
UM, BLACK, WHITE OR YOU KNOW, OR WHATEVER.
UM, THE PARSONS SITUATION IS GONNA IMPACT A LOT OF CHURCHES AND 90% OF CHURCHES ARE SMALL TO MID-SIZE.
UM, THERE ARE NOT MANY, OF COURSE IN RICHMOND IS ST.
PAUL AND, UM, YOU KNOW, CEDAR STREET, THESE HUGE CHURCHES HOPE HERE IT, MOST CHURCHES ARE NOT LIKE THAT.
MOST CHURCHES ARE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T FIXED INCOMES, PAYING TIES AND OFFERINGS.
AND WE ARE JUST MAINTAINING TO KEEP OUR DOORS OPEN WHILE PROVIDING FUNERALS AND WEDDINGS AND THE INCOME, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT INCOME VERSUS NET INCOME.
THE NET INCOME FIGURE'S NOT GONNA BE THAT GREAT.
YOU MAY SEE GROSS INCOME, BUT WHEN YOU TAKE OUT ALL THE EXPENSES, IT'S NOT GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL.
SO I JUST WANTED JUST TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT SMALLER CHURCHES AND MIDSIZE CHURCHES.
AND SMALL IS DEFINED AS A HUNDRED WORSHIPERS OR LESS, AND MIDSIZE IS A HUNDRED TO 500.
AND SINCE THE PANDEMIC, ALL OF OUR NUMBERS HAVE BEEN CUT FOR THE MOST POINT, FOR THE MOST POINT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE COMING OUT OF A KIND OF A, ALMOST A HISTORIC, UM, CRISIS IN THE CHURCH AND WE'VE KIND OF FIGURED IT OUT.
BUT THIS COULD ADD ANOTHER LAYER, UM, TO THAT IF YOU START GETTING TAX BILLS, UM, ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO, UM, I'M JUST GOING TO, UM, STOP RIGHT THERE AND, UM, I'M GOOD AT SHUTTING UP.
HI, MY NAME IS, UH, JEN STEWARD.
THANKS BOARD FOR HAVING ME HERE.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, GIVE MY SUPPORT TO MS. HOBBS AND REVEREND HARRIS.
UM, WHEN I GO TO CHURCH, I GO TO JERUSALEM BAPTIST.
THEY DO WORK THAT A LOT OF COUNTIES DO AND PAY MONEY FOR, THEY DO FOR FREE, UM, BASED ON THE MONEY THAT PEOPLE DONATE TO THEM.
UM, I'D HATE TO SEE ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THAT.
UM, SO I'M JUST HERE TO SAY THAT I REALLY SUPPORT THAT CHURCH AND I HOPE YOU WILL TOO AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY SAID.
ANYONE ELSE? MR. CHAIRMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MADAM COUNSEL, MADAM SECRETARY.
I RESIDED 2 0 5 2 MAINTENANCE ROAD MAINTENANCE, VIRGINIA 2 3 1 0 2.
AND I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORDINANCE.
THE FIRST THING I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD DO IS GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES, UH, OR REP, UH, REPRESENTATIVE IN THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND HAVE 'EM CHANGE THE CODE OF VIRGINIA.
THE CODE OF VIRGINIA INCLUDES ALL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE
[02:45:01]
CHURCHES, THEY SHOULD NEVER BE INCLUDED.THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR US CONSTITUTION AND ALSO OUR COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT SEP SEPARATION OF CHURCHES.
I THINK THERE'S NO CASE FOR ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
AND I ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE ACTUAL LAW STATES MAY REQUIRE, THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
I DON'T THINK THIS COUNTY IS REALLY LOOKING FOR SOURCES OF REVENUE.
AND I UNDERSTAND GOING AFTER SOME QUESTIONABLE NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT MIGHT BE HIDING, UH, LET'S SAY CERTAIN TAXABLE INCOME OFF PROPERTIES.
BUT THIS IS TOO ENCOMPASSING OF EVERYTHING THAT IS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.
AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS EXIST IN OUR SOCIETY AND HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT, E M T AND OTHER SUPPORT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE SAME CONCEPT.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE DEVIATION THAT IS PUT FORTH IN OUR CONSTITUTIONS, BOTH OUR NATIONAL AND OUR LOCAL CONSTITUTION FOR THE COMMONWEALTH.
SO THEREFORE, I WOULD ASK THAT WHAT BE SET FORTH IS AN ACTION TO GO TO OUR HOUSE OF DISTRICT MEMBERS, OUR SENATE DISTRICT MEMBERS, AND TO ASK THEM TO CHANGE THE CODE OF VIRGINIA 58.1 DASH 3 6 0 5 TO REMOVE THE ESSENCE OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WHEN DOING THIS.
'CAUSE REMEMBER, THAT FORM THAT GOES FORTH CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY WHIM BY ANYONE WITHIN THE STAFF.
SO IN ANY FUTURE GENERATION, THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS NOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
ALRIGHT, CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT HERE.
WAS ANYTHING SAID THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO AT THIS TIME OR? I'D BE HAPPY TO.
UM, AND THEN IF BOARD MEMBERS POINT OUT THINGS THAT THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT TOO.
UM, I'M GONNA START FROM THE BACK AND GO FORWARD JUST 'CAUSE THAT'S HOW MY NOTES ARE.
UH, CERTAINLY SHOULD THIS BOARD DECIDE TO GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE, UM, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION OF THAT.
THAT'S A POLICY QUESTION, FRANKLY, ABOVE MY PAY GRADE THAT THAT GOES TO YOU ALL.
UM, IN ADDITION TO CHANGING THE VIRGINIA CODE, YOU'D HAVE TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE, UH, THE AND GENESIS OF ALL STATE EXEMPTIONS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
AND THE, THE LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE IS IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT'S DOABLE.
UM, AND IT'S NOTHING THAT STAFF HAS ANY PROBLEM WITH THE BOARD SUPPORTING IF IT WISHES TO.
THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL.
SO WHAT WE'VE PUT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ABOUT WHAT A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE NOW.
IT IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THE STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ADOPT A AN APPLICATION ORDINANCE IS PERMISSIVE.
YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN WHICH PEOPLE HAVE TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO GET THEIR TAX EXEMPTIONS THAT IS PERMISSIVE.
WE MENTIONED ALREADY THE REGIONAL LOCALITIES THAT HAVE THAT ORDINANCE AND AS REVEREND HARRIS ADMITTED, SOME OF 'EM HAVE HAD 'EM FOR 20 YEARS.
SO, UH, IT EXISTS IN MORE LOCALITIES THAN THAT.
YOUR STAFF, THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE HAS ASKED YOU TO DO THAT.
AND, UM, THEY COULD SIMPLY HAVE SENT OUT AN APPLICATION, SAY TO THE PARCELS THAT THE 75, BUT THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE TRANSPARENT ENOUGH FOR WHAT GLAND COUNTY DID FOR ONE OF YOU KNOW, YOUR OFFICES TO SEND OUT AN APPLICATION TO THESE TAX EXEMPT ENTITIES WITHOUT EVER GETTING YOUR INPUT ON IT, WITHOUT EVER TRYING TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR IT.
SO THAT'S WHY THE THIS PATH WAS CHOSEN.
UM, BUT IT IS NOT OBLIGATORY THAT YOU HAVE THAT ORDINANCE.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT REVEREND HARRIS, UM, AND I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THE, THE DRIVE REVEREND HARRIS, UH, AGAIN, UM, IT WAS, WE HAD A VERY GOOD MEETING ON, UM, UH, FRIDAY.
I'LL CORRECT MS. HOBBS ONLY A MOMENT.
BUT IT WAS A GOOD SOLID EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS NOT AWARE OF ON BEHALF OF STAFF.
AND, YOU KNOW, TO TRY AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE WERE DOING, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT REVEREND HARRIS MENTIONED, THE SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE VERSUS NET INCOME, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I LEARNED FROM THEM AND SAID, I THINK OUR TEAM CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE TO OUR APPLICATION.
AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT CHANGED IT YET BECAUSE THAT'S JUST A FUNCTION OF TIME.
TODAY WAS THE FIRST BUSINESS DAY SINCE THEN.
UM, AND WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT REVEREND HARRIS'S AND, AND THE CONCERNS OF OTHERS, UM,
[02:50:01]
MRS. BOWLES AND, UM, AS WELL ABOUT NOT TRYING TO GET, UH, CHURCHES TO HAVE THIS SUDDENLY COME ON THEM WITHOUT WARNING.THAT'S THE GENESIS OF STAFF'S REQUEST TO HAVE YOU ALL HAVE A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE SO THAT WE CAN WORK WITH CHURCHES ABOUT, AND OTHERS, FRANKLY.
BUT FRY FROM FRIDAY, IT'S BEEN CHURCHES, UM, ABOUT HOW THEY COULD, UH, LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THEY SHOULD CONTINUE TO OWN THAT PROPERTY.
WHETHER THEY CAN JUST SIMPLY PUT IT IN USE, AS I EXPLAINED TO THE MEMBERS, UH, ON THE MEETING ON FRIDAY.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE EVERY SINGLE WEEK.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A CHURCH THERE.
YOU HEARD MS. DAVIS COME TO THE, UM, MICROPHONE AND SAY, IF THEY'VE GOT PLANS TO EXPAND THEIR CEMETERY THERE, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR HER THAT THEY HAVE A PLAN IN, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY CAN POINT TO, TO SAY, WE'RE GONNA PUT OUR CEMETERY THERE.
THERE'S NOBODY BURIED THERE YET, BUT WE NEED THAT SPACE.
UM, AS THEY GO BACK, UH, EVEN FURTHER TO THE COMMENTS OF, UM, MS. HOBBS, UH, SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICATION COULD CHANGE AS IT HAS AND IT HAS, BUT MS. HOBBS OR ANYONE I'VE MET WITH WOULD AGREE IT'S BECOME BETTER, EASIER.
A LIGHTER TOUCH OF GOVERNMENT ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT THE APPLICATION HAS HAD.
AND IT'S TRUE THAT IT'S NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ACTUALLY ADOPT THE APPLICATION TO BE USED, BUT THE STAFF THAT PUT THAT APPLICATION TOGETHER WORK FOR YOU.
THEY WORK UNDER YOUR POLICY, THEY WORK ON IT WITH THEIR BUDGETS TO YOU.
AND SO THAT APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.
THAT'S WHY I SHARED IT WITH ALL OF YOU.
UM, IN OUR MEETINGS, IN PREPARATION FOR TONIGHT, IT'S BEEN ON THE WEBSITE AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE IT BETTER AND TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, UM, SO THAT WE COULD, IN TERMS OF THAT INCOME FROM RENTAL PROPERTY THAT MS. HOBBS MENTIONED.
AGAIN, WE TOOK THAT UP FRIDAY AND I SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? I CAN SEE A WAY THAT WE DON'T NEED TO ASK FOR THAT.
AND SO THAT'S NOT A CHANGE WE'VE MADE YET.
SO IT'S COMPLETELY FAIR FOR IT TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING, UM, STAFF HAS PROBLEM WITH.
AND LET ME JUST SAY FOR BEHALF, MS. HOBBS, WITH RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT ACTIVELY BEING USED TODAY, YOU'RE HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I TOLD HER ON FRIDAY.
NO, I'VE, I'VE SHOWN THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD THAT SAYS THERE HAS TO BE SOME USE OF IT.
ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT STAFF IS VERY INTERESTED IN HELPING OUR NONPROFITS FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY CAN DO TO MEET THAT STANDARD, TO TELL THEM, IF YOU DO THIS, THAT'S GONNA BE OKAY FOR US, THAT'S GONNA KEEP IT TAX EXEMPT.
AND AS I DID, UH, I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY, UH, IN THE MEETING ON FRIDAY SAYING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOUR SUNRISE EASTER SERVICE COULD BE THERE.
MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE THE YOUTH HAVE A RETREAT THERE.
WE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE TABLE.
AND THAT'S JUST TO SAY WE'RE NOT OUT TO TRY AND GRAB THAT MONEY.
UM, YOU KNOW, MR. SLOAN, WE'RE NOT OUT TRYING TO INCREASE THE COFFERS.
WE JUST HONESTLY STARTED ABOUT THIS, ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE BEING A TRANSPARENT WAY TO HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT GOOD USE OF, OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH OUR FUNDS.
SO THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO ADDRESS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
MR. WATERS, UM, MS. MCGEE, I HAD TWO QUESTIONS THAT WOULD BE RELATED TO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND MAINLY THE QUESTIONS ARE, ARE THEY DOABLE? UM, I APPRECIATED ALL THE COMMENTS, BUT PARTICULARLY REVEREND HARRIS' REGARDING LAND, UH, PROPERTY, UH, THAT'S BEEN DONATED TO THE CHURCH IN SOMEONE'S WILL.
UM, COULD AN AMENDMENT BE THAT ONLY IF LAND IS, IS DISPOSED OF OR USED FOR REVENUE GENERATING PURPOSES, COULD TAXES BE COLLECTED? UM, IS THAT A, WOULD THAT BE DOABLE IN THAT IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS US TO, UH, THE FOLLOWING OF IT PROPERTY AND NO OTHER SHALL BE EXEMPT.
AND IN TAXATION, AS IN MANY THINGS FOR GOVERNMENT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE UNIFORM.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR ALL NONPROFITS SUBJECT TO A TAX EXEMPTION.
BUT IT, IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
WE ARE REQUIRED IF IT IS, IF TO EXEMPT ONLY WHAT'S, UM, OWNED AND, AND USED, OCCUPIED AND USED BY CHURCHES, UM, FOR THEIR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OR THEIR MINISTERS.
SORRY TO BE THE LAWYER THERE, BUT NO, NO, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT IT'S THE VALUE OF, UM, YOUR ADVICE.
UH, AND THEN SECONDLY, COULD, COULD A PROVISION BE PUT IN THAT IF WE WERE TO ADOPT A APPLICATION THERE NO REVISIONS COULD BE MADE WITHOUT THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
I DON'T THINK IT'S, I I I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO ANY, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY INTENTIONS TO MAKE REVISIONS ONCE WE LAND ON A, UH, FINAL DRAFT, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE, UH, ORDINANCE.
BUT WE COULD PUT IN THAT CLAUSE SUCH THAT NOTHING
[02:55:01]
COULD BE DONE JUST UNILATERALLY BY STAFF, STAFF OR WITHOUT PUBLIC, UH, AWARENESS.UH, YES, THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE POWER OF WHAT YOU COULD DO.
AND, AND I KNOW ON BEHALF OF THE TEAM, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU NOT ADOPT THE APPLICATION WE HAVE TODAY, BUT PERHAPS WE WOULD SET A TIME NEXT YEAR.
GIVE US A CHANCE TO KEEP WORKING WITH FOLKS, GET A FINAL APPLICATION BEFORE YOU PUT IT, YOU KNOW, ON A CONSENT AGENDA OR DISCUSS IT IN TWO BY TWOS AND GET YOUR APPROVAL WITH IT.
BUT YEAH, SETH IS NOT INTERESTED IN DOING ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T SUPPORT.
SO I'M BACK TO THIS, UH, THIS SLIDE THAT YOU HAVE UP THERE.
THANK YOU FOR KEEPING IT UP THERE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
SO THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, UM, THE FOLLOWING AND NO OTHER SHALL BE EXEMPT.
AND THEN ITEM TWO, WHICH IS THE REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ZONE CLAUSE IS OUT OF VIRGINIA CODE.
THAT'S STILL OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND IT, SO IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE HAVE AN OPTION.
WHERE IS THIS IDEA OF AN OPTION COME FROM? NO, THE ONLY OPTION THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SO FAR IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES AN APPLICATION.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S THE, ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE ENTITIES WILL FILE AN APPLICATION TO CLAIM THEIR TAX EXEMPTION.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THAT ORDINANCE.
UM, OTHER LOCALITIES DO AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, BUT THAT'S STATE LAW OPTION.
NOT EVERY LOCALITY IN VIRGINIA HAS THAT ORDINANCE.
SO THE OPTION IS ON THE APPLICATION YES, MA'AM.
TO HAVE IT AS AN, AS AN ORDINANCE.
AND IS, UH, IS IT POSSIBLE THERE ARE OTHER, UH, TAX EXEMPT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS OTHER THAN CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD FALL INTO THIS SECTION? YES, MA'AM.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO AN ORDINANCE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR THE OTHER TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS ACCEPT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS? I THINK THE CONCERN WOULD BE THAT TAXATION, LIKE MANY IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNIFORM UNIFORMITY IS THE GOAL OF TAXATION.
IT'S THE OVERRIDING LEGAL STANDARD.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE SOME NONPROFITS THAT HAVE TO FILE AN APPLICATION AND SOME THAT DON'T, THAT'S NOT UNIFORM.
THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN ABOUT IT, IS THE RISK OF NOT BEING UNIFORM IN YOUR REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE CONCERN THAT, UH, WAS BROUGHT UP, I BELIEVE BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON, UH, ABOUT INVASIVE, I'LL USE THAT WORD, NATURE OF THE APPLICATION.
UM, AND WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT CAN BE REVISED.
I MEAN, I WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE COMMENT ABOUT REVENUE FROM RENTAL OR USE OF THAT, OF OTHER PROPERTIES.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE? UM, AGAIN, I'VE TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT IT BRIEFLY, BUT WE DIDN'T WORK ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICATION.
'CAUSE WE WANTED TO, TO FOCUS ON WHAT OUR POSITION WOULD BE TONIGHT, HOW WE COULD RESPOND TO THE BIGGER CONCERNS WE HEARD ON FRIDAY.
BUT YES, IN A BRIEF MEETING WE HAD TODAY WITH STAFF AND LOOKED AT THAT, WE FELT THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO MAKE THAT NOT SOMETHING WE NEED TO KNOW.
THE, AGAIN, BEING A LAWYER, I SOMETIMES FALL BACK ON THE LEGAL WORDS AND IN THE DECISIONS AND IN THE COURT OPINIONS, THEY TALK ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE.
BUT I AGREED WITH REVEREND HARRIS AS SOON AS HE SAID IT ON FRIDAY.
I MEAN, WE'RE CHARGING TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON AND TO GET THE PLACE CLEANED ONCE YOU TAKE OUR COSTS OUT.
AND I'M LIKE, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
AND SO THE COMMITMENT I WAS TALKING TO STAFF ABOUT TODAY IS, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN I LEARNED ABOUT THE TYPES OF REVENUES THAT GENERATED, LIKE WE HAVE A SUMMER CAMP, WHICH USUALLY FRANKLY IS A VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL OR WE MIGHT HAVE, YOU KNOW, UM, UM, A SENIOR CITIZEN PROGRAM.
UM, AND MY, I SAID TO THE GROUP TODAY, WE NEED TO DIVE RIGHT INTO THE FACT, I DON'T EVEN THINK THOSE PROGRAMS ARE CONSIDERED OTHER USE.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF THEIR COMMUNITY, RELIGIOUS.
SO I DON'T EVEN THINK THOSE ARE GONNA COUNT AT ALL.
AND I'D LIKE TO FIND THAT OUT BY SEARCHING TAX CODES AND OPINIONS AND CHECKING.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE CAN BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
BUT YES, I THINK WE CAME DOWN TO THE IDEA THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO LOOK AT REVENUE.
THAT THAT IN ITSELF PUTS THE POSSIBILITY EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION, THE POSSIBILITY OF TRYING TO CHECK INTO THE FINANCIAL BOOKS AND THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE THERE.
SO THAT WAS THINGS THAT WE TOOK VERY POSITIVELY FROM THE COMMENTS FROM ON FRIDAY, UM, AND INTEND TO ADDRESS IF WE, UM,
[03:00:01]
SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH AN ORDINANCE AND APPLICATION.SO I THOUGHT THIS ONE WAS GONNA BE A PRETTY SIMPLE ONE AT FIRST, JUST LIKE A LOT OF STUFF UP HERE, BUT WHEN YOU GET IN, IN THE DETAILS, WE ALL KNOW IT'S IN THE DETAILS, RIGHT? UM, I, I SAW THE GOVERNMENT ATTACK CHURCHES, I SAW 'EM SHUT US DOWN.
I SAW 'EM KEEP LIQUOR STORES OPEN AND BARS OPEN, BUT SHUT DOWN OUR CHURCHES.
UM, I HAVE A HARD, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS MY GOAL IS TO DO LESS LEGISLATION AND, AND REMOVE MORE THINGS.
I DON'T THINK EVEN AS WELL INTENTIONED, WE HAVE GREAT PEOPLE HERE, WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO SUCCEED US.
AND WHEN WE DO THIS, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I COULD LOOK MYSELF IN THE MIRROR SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING MORE ONEROUS FOR CHURCHES.
I JUST, I JUST, I JUST, I JUST CAN'T DO THAT.
OH, UM, REAL QUICKLY, UH, WHERE I'M LANDING ON THIS, AND WE, WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS SINCE LAST MONTH IN, IN, IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS.
I, I, I DON'T, I CAN'T GET BEHIND THIS, UM, UNTIL WE INCORPORATE AT, AT A MINIMUM, INCORPORATE THE APPLICATION ITSELF INTO THE ORDINANCE.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE, UH, KIND OF GOES TO WHAT YOU WERE ASKING MR. VOS.
I, I THINK THE APPLICATION, AND FOR THIS INSTANCE, THE APPLICATION JUST NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE SO THAT, SO THAT IF THE APPLICATION'S GONNA BE CHANGED, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY THIS BOARD.
UM, AND IT, AND I, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'RE NOT READY FOR THAT.
'CAUSE THERE'S CHANGES STILL COMING.
AND IF WE'RE ABLE TO, UM, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE THAT IT DOESN'T START TILL THE CALENDAR YEAR 2025, AS MS. HOBBS SAID, WE CAN TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME RIGHT NOW, UM, TO GET THIS RIGHT.
BUT I, I, I GUESS I'M, I'M WITH YOU, MR. SPOON.
HOWER, THE ONLY FLIP SIDE OF THIS IS, UM, AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE AUGUST MEETING, TAXPAYERS COULD BE SUBSIDIZING.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE PAY PROPERTY TAXES ON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY AND, AND VAST MAJORITY OF TAXPAYERS ARE OBLIGATED TO DO SO.
SO IF WE GET, IF WE GET COMPLETELY HANDS OFF, THERE'S THE FLIP SIDE THAT TAXPAYERS ARE SUBSIDIZING FOLKS THAT SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPT.
IT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE A 5 0 1 C DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE EXEMPT.
SO IF WE'RE TO FOLLOW THE LAW, I THINK WE CAN, WE'RE GETTING VERY CLOSE TO BEING, ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD AND BEING VERY LIGHT HANDED WITH THIS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE IT LOCKED IN WHERE THE APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN WORKED ON AND WORKED ON AND AND COMFORT PEOPLE HERE THAT HAVE ADDRESSED IT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
UM, THAT KIND OF NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE I'LL, I'LL SUPPORT, UM, ADOPTION OF ANY, ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THIS.
UM, I'M GOING OFF OF A COMMENT THAT, UM, OR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, BUT CARPENTER MADE EARLIER TODAY THAT, UM, STAFF IS WORKING DILIGENTLY ON COUNTLESS PROJECTS.
AND I THINK THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT NOT GET TO THE SOLUTION TONIGHT, BUT EVERYONE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO TRY AND FIND A COMMON GOAL.
AND, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK SOMETIMES YOU, YOU GET A DENIAL OR DEFERRAL AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK, NO, THAT'S A LOSS OR A WIN.
THIS, THIS I THINK IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF, OKAY, WE TOOK OUR LEARNINGS, SEVERAL OF US HAVE CHANGED OPINION, HEARING MORE AND MORE ABOUT IT.
AND I JUST, I'D BE REMISS NOT TO MENTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND TIME STAFF HAS TAKEN TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE, BUT ALSO TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY IS INVALUABLE.
AND IT, IT, FRANKLY, IT MAKES GLAND WHAT IT IS.
SO, THANK Y'ALL, MR. PETERSON, MR. CHAIR.
UM, COUPLE THINGS HERE REAL QUICK.
UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HEARD A COMMENT, A CONCERN ABOUT MATERIAL NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION, INTRUSIVENESS AND ALL OF THAT ARE THE, THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS ARE, WE'RE NOT, NOT ASKING FOR ANY THAT'S CORRECT.
EVEN THE APPLICATION THAT WAS MAILED OUT ON THE 25TH FOR A CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS BODY, IF THERE IS NOT A DOCUMENT PUBLICLY FILED, THEN IT WILL NOT COME INTO THE GOVERNMENT ONLY PUBLIC INFORMATION ON ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
ONLY PUBLIC INFORMATION AT THIS POINT.
I, I'M GETTING CLOSER ON THE ORDINANCE.
I'M STILL NOT THERE ON THE APPLICATION.
AND I HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR UP THAT WE'RE NOT, THE INTENT HERE IS NOT TO ASK FOR ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ALREADY OUT THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SEEMS TO ME, AND, UH, WE'RE A DI RURAL STATE, SO THIS COUNTY CAN ONLY TAX THINGS WE'RE ALLOWED TO TAX.
[03:05:01]
CAN ONLY GRANT TAX EXEMPTIONS WHERE WE'RE ALLOWED TO GRANT A TAX EXEMPTION.FOR INSTANCE, WE DON'T HAVE A COUNTY TAX ON CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL AND INCOME AND A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE THOSE KINDS OF TAXES.
WE'RE ALSO NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS TO, UNLESS THEY'RE ENUMERATED.
SO WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T TAX AND CAN AND CAN'T PROVIDE, UH, TAX BENEFITS TO IN THIS CASE.
UM, THANK YOU FOR LEAVING THIS UP, BUT IF I READ THIS, THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION WHERE YOU HAVE NUMBER TWO, REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX OWNED, BUT OWNED DOESN'T SEEM TO BE SUFFICIENT, SAYS OWNED AND OCCU OCCUPIED OR USED.
SO YOU NOT ONLY HAVE TO OWN IT, YOU HAVE TO OCCUPY IT OR USE IT.
AND SO WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS DOING IS SHIFTING US IN THE DIRECTION OF SHIFTING FROM WHO'S ON THE TITLE TO HOW IS IT BEING USED? BECAUSE I THINK GENERALLY THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN FIT TO EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZE THINGS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR THOSE THINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE.
SOMETIMES TAKING IT TO THE EXTREME CAN KIND OF FRAME THE ISSUE.
NOT THAT YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, BUT IF WE HAD A CHURCH THAT PURCHASED AN APARTMENT COMPLEX ON ONE SIDE AND A DAIRY FARM ON THE OTHER, AND THOSE THREE WERE TITLED IN THAT CHURCH, IF IT WENT BY THE TITLE, WHO'S ON THE TITLE? ALL THREE OF THOSE WOULD BE TAX EXEMPT OPERATIONS.
IF IT GOES BY THE ACTIVITY OR USE ONLY ONE WOULD BE, AS I READ THIS, NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS OWNERSHIP AND WHO'S ON THE TITLE IS NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF.
THIS IS STATE CONSTITUTION, THIS IS NOT GUTZON COUNTY MAKING THIS STUFF UP.
SO AS, AS I INTERPRETED WHAT THIS ZONING POTENTIAL CONTEMPLATED ZONING CHANGE WOULD BE TO, WOULD BE TO BASICALLY BRING US IN LINE WITH THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU CAN ONLY PROVIDE THIS BENEFIT IF IT'S NOT ONLY OWNED, BUT IT'S ALSO OCCUPIED OR USED.
IS THAT A FAIR, I'M NOT A LAWYER EITHER.
SO, UH, IS THAT A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION, MS. MCGEE? THAT'S AN EXCELLENT CHARACTERIZATION, MR. PETERSON.
ALTHOUGH IT'S, UM, I THINK YOU JUST MISSPOKE FROM IT.
IT'S NOT A ZONING CHANGE, IT'S JUST AN ORDINANCE CHANGE.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU WERE SPOT ON.
THIS IS HELPING ME THINK THIS THROUGH AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE OUT THERE AS WELL, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONVERSANT WITH DYLAN RULE, THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION, ET CETERA, JUST SHARING SOME OF THIS INFORMATION.
SO EFFECTIVELY IT'S A SHIFT FROM AN ACTIVITY, UM, AWAY FROM A TITLE.
UM, AND, AND PART OF THIS DOCUMENTATION WOULD BE TO PROTECT THAT TAX EXEMPT STATUS BENEFIT THAT'S BEING AFFORDED.
WITHOUT THIS, THERE IS NO DEFENSE OUT THERE.
WE DON'T HAVE DOCUMENTATION ON FILE TO D DEFEND IT IN CASE IT'S CHALLENGED.
THIS WAY WE COULD SAY, YES, IT IS BEING EXTENDED AND HERE'S THE REASON WHY WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION TO PROTECT THAT BENEFIT AS WELL.
SO THERE'S SOME BENEFIT THERE.
UM, AND THEN MY LAST THING, AGAIN, I'VE TOLD YOU I'M NOT QUITE THERE YET ON THIS, UH, THE WHOLE PACKAGE DEAL.
THE SUGGESTION TONIGHT WAS PERHAPS TO ADOPT BUT THEN NOT MAKE IT EFFECTIVE FOR A WHILE.
WHILE, UM, CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WERE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH HOW TO DEAL WITH CERTAIN ISSUES.
THERE'S A PARALLEL THERE THAT, UH, MY COLLEAGUE HAD BROUGHT UP WITH WHAT HAPPENS IF A CHURCH GET INHERITANCE AS A PIECE OF PROPERTY? THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE INTRODUCED TO SOME KIND OF DEFERRAL PERIOD THERE AS WELL TO SAY, OKAY, RIGHT NOW IF WE ADOPT THIS TONIGHT, A A CHURCH WITH VACANT LAND MIGHT SAY, OKAY, NOW I NEED SOME TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
WELL, IF THEY GET INHERITED, THEY MAY NEED SOME TIME TOO.
SO THERE MAY BE A PARALLEL TO THE SUGGESTION THAT CAME UP TONIGHT TO SAY, ALRIGHT, WELL LET'S DO THAT.
IN ALL CASES WHERE SOMETHING SHIFTS FROM TAX EXEMPT, OR I'M SORRY, FROM TAXABLE TO POSSIBLY TAX EXEMPT, GIVEN SOME KIND OF GRACE PERIOD TO FIGURE IT OUT AND SORT IT OUT SO THAT WE DON'T PUT ANYBODY IN THE BIND, UM, I'LL YIELD BACK.
THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CHAIRMAN? UH, IF WE'RE LOOKING TO, TO DEFER THIS, UM, WHAT, WHAT'S A CALENDAR LOOK LIKE? UM, IF, IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO DEFER IT, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT IT GO TO PERHAPS, UM, MARCH, UH, MAYBE FEBRUARY AT THE EARLIEST.
BUT BOTH WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE, UH, COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE CARRY HEAVY BURDENS THEMSELVES ON RUNNING BILLS AND TO GET OUT AND DO THAT, UM, UH, EDUCATION AND TO HAVE TIME FOR INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS WITH FOLKS WHO HAVE PROPERTY THAT COULD BE SUBJECT TO TAX.
TRY AND HELP THEM TRY AND GIVE 'EM THEIR OPTIONS.
UM, GET THAT INFORMATION OUT AND AS WE'VE GATHERED INFORMATION TO CHANGE THE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICATION AND IMPROVE IT, MAKE IT LESS THE LIGHTER HAND OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS WHAT THIS BOARD HAS ALWAYS WANTED.
AND IT'S WHAT STAFF'S BEEN STRIVING TO DO SINCE WE STARTED.
[03:10:01]
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEFER THIS MATTER TO OUR REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING IN MARCH OF 2024.SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WILL CALL VOTE MS. LUMPKINS? YES.
ALRIGHT, I YOU NEED A BREAK? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA TAKE 10 MINUTES.
SO BIG HAND ON THE FLOOR PLEASE.
[03:20:46]
AYE.[03:20:46]
ALL RIGHT FOLKS.I'M GONNA CALL US BACK TO ORDER.
AND WE ARE UP TO OUR THIRD CASE.
[3. 5803: District 1 - CU-2023-00009 Application by Lindsey and Casey Davenport]
OF THE BOARD CHAIRMAN SPOON HOWER.I'M CRYSTAL NIUS, DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
FIGURED I'D SAY THAT SINCE I FORGOT TO THE FIRST TIME I GOT SUMMONED UP.
SO BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT, UM, YOU HAVE THREE LAND USE CASES.
UM, I WILL PRESENT THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UM, BY LINDSEY AND CASEY DAVENPORT FOR AN ACCESSORY FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.
IT'S LOCATED AT 54 25 RIVER ROAD WEST.
THE ZONING AS IT EXISTS NOW IS A AGRICULTURAL GENERAL, A ONE THE LAND USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AS A RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA.
UM, SO JUST TO ORIENT YOU ALL TO SORT OF WHERE THIS IS LOCATED, OH GOSH, WE DID THIS AGAIN WITH THE MAPS 'CAUSE I CAN'T READ THIS FAR AWAY.
I'VE ASKED FOR A LITTLE SCREEN HERE.
SO, UM, IT'S LOCATED JUST NEAR RIVER ROAD WEST, WHICH RIGHT HERE IS RIVER ROAD WEST.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT WHERE IT IS IN PROXIMITY TO, UM, THE COUNTY BUILDING, IT'S ACTUALLY, UM, ALL RIGHT, WE'LL JUST STICK WITH THAT.
SO IT'S LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE? NO, GOD DANG IT.
ANYWAYS, UM, SO IT'S OFF OF RIVER ROAD WEST AND IT IS A PARCEL THAT IS ABOUT EIGHT ACRES IN SIZE.
UM, AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT IT'S ZONED A ONE.
THERE'S RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, AND IT'S PART OF OUR RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA PER THE COMP PLAN.
SO JUST A SUMMARY OF OUR APPLICATION, AGAIN, IT'S A LITTLE OVER EIGHT ACRES, 8.05 ACRES.
THERE CURRENTLY IS AN EXISTING ONE STORY, UM, DWELLING THAT IS ON THE PARCEL THAT'S DOWN HERE.
THIS YELLOW CIRCLED AREA IS ACTUALLY WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE DETACHED DWELLING, WHICH BE ABOUT 800 TO 900 SQUARE FEET.
THE EXISTING PERMANENT STRUCTURE IS ABOUT 1,624 FEET.
UM, THE APPLICANTS ARE INDICATING THAT IT WILL BE A, UM, IN-LAW SUITE OR IN-LAW HOME, UM, AS THEY PLAN TO HAVE A PARENT, UM, LIVING THERE.
UM, THE APPLICANTS ALSO INDICATED THAT THE STRUCTURE MAY BE USED AS A PERSONAL OFFICE, WHICH IS PERMITTED BY WRIGHT WITH THE, UM, LAND AND IT'S NOT REQUIRE A C U P.
SO JUST AGAIN, OUR COMP PLAN, THIS APPLICATION IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA LAND USE DESIGNATION.
UM, AGAIN, WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING, UM, FOR THIS APPLICATION ON JUNE 13TH, 2023.
ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ATTENDED AND EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THIS WAS HEARD AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS WAS RECOMMENDED FOR A FOUR OH VOTE AT THE JULY MEETING.
MR. PUCK WAS ABSENT AND NO ONE SPOKE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING CARRYING.
UM, JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS, THE STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE WITH ANY DETACHED DWELLING.
UM, SPECIFYING THE USE THAT IT IS FOR FAMILY HAVING THE USE LIMITATION, UM, THAT IS NOT FOR RENTAL AND THAT CARBON MONOXIDE AND SMOKE DETECTORS ARE INSTALLED, UM, AS REQUIRED BY BUILDING CODE, UM, EMERGENCY ACCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S EMERGENCY ACCESSIBILITY.
UM, THIS IS A FIVE YEAR C U P AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AGAIN, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IF THE PROPERTY, UM, IN OF ITSELF THE PRINCIPAL PROPERTY AND THE PARCEL ARE SOLD.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? OR IS THE APPLICANT HERE? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SAY ANYTHING AT THIS TIME? NO.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[03:25:06]
OKAY.I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY THINK OF ANY QUESTIONS, UH, IN THAT TIMEFRAME? ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? MR.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL VOTE.
[4. 5800: District 3 - CU-2023-00008 Application by William and Ashley Hines]
OKAY, NOW WE'RE ON TO ONE THAT'S NEAR THE COURTHOUSE VILLAGE AREA.SO, UM, BEFORE YOU ALL, YOU HAVE A SECOND CASE THIS EVENING, AND THIS IS FOR, UM, WILLIAM AND ASHLEY HINES.
IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY HOUSING UNIT.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE SEEKING TWO EXCEPTIONS FROM OUR TRADITIONAL STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE.
UM, NAMELY THE STANDARD OF ONLY PERSONS RELATING TO RESIDENT OF PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO RESIDE IN ACCESSORY DWELLING AS WELL AS AN EXCEPTION TO RENTAL OF SECOND DWELLING SEPARATELY FROM PRINCIPAL DWELLING PROHIBITED.
I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A LITTLE MORE ONCE WE GET INTO THE PRESENTATION.
UM, THE AREA ITSELF THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS 3.16 ACRES AND IT IS LOCATED AT 24 86 LOG CABIN ROAD.
ITS ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL LIMITED, A TWO AND ITS LAND USE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
UM, WITHIN OUR CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION.
AND THE COMP PLAN CALLS FOR IT TO BE A RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA, WHICH AGAIN IS LARGER LOT SUBDIVISIONS.
UM, SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S MAIDEN'S ROAD AND, UM, HIDDEN ROCK PARK.
SO THE ACTUAL PARCEL WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING AT HAVING, UM, THE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR OTHER THAN FAMILY USE IS LOCATED HERE IN THE CROSSROAD SUBDIVISION.
UM, IT'S JUST OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE VILLAGE AREA, WHICH IS OUR DESIGNATED GROWTH AREA.
UM, IT IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO HIDDEN ROCK PARK AND AGAIN, DIRECTLY OFF OF MAIDEN'S ROAD.
IT IS ZONED A TWO ON THE EXISTING ZONING MAP.
AND AGAIN, PER THE COMP PLAN, IT IS DESIGNATED AS A RULE AND ENHANCEMENT AREA, UM, WITH NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ABUTTING AS WELL AS PUBLIC OWNED INSTITUTIONAL USES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AS WELL.
SO JUST A SUMMARY OF THIS APPLICATION, AGAIN, I MENTIONED IT'S A THREE ACRE PARCEL.
THERE'S AN EXISTING PRINCIPLE DWELLING THAT'S A LITTLE OVER 2,600 SQUARE FEET AND THAT'S WHERE THE APPLICANTS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY AND INTEND TO CONTINUE LIVING IN THE PRINCIPLED DWELLING.
THERE IS AN EXISTING DETACHED STRUCTURE THAT'S ABOUT 1600 SQUARE FEET.
THERE IS A GARAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR THAT'S 800 SQUARE FEET AND A LIVING SPACE UPSTAIRS THAT IS ABOUT 800 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO BEDROOMS, ONE FULL BATH, A KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM.
PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A BUILDING PERMIT APPROVED FOR THIS LIVING SPACE AND 1997 IT WAS PRIMARILY USED AS A HOME OFFICE FOR THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
FOR A SMALL BUSINESS, IT WAS CRAFTSMAN OF VIRGINIA INCORPORATED UNTIL THEY RETIRED IN 2021.
THERE'S NO NEW CONSTRUCTION PLANNED.
OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, AGAIN, THIS APPLICATION, UM, WITH STAFF'S ANALYSIS IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND IT SUPPORTS A STRATEGY TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR VARIED HOUSING TYPES.
UM, COMMUNITY MEETING WAS HELD ON JUNE 14TH, 2023.
ATTENDEES HAD NO CONCERNS AND EXPRESSED SUPPORT.
UM, THIS CASE WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE JULY MEETING, AND IT WAS A RE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A THREE ONE VOTE.
MR. MYERS VOTED AGAINST RECOMMENDATION, I'M SORRY, THE AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UM, VOTED AGAINST RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
MR. PUCK WAS ABSENT, NO ONE SPOKE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND JUST A LITTLE MORE ON THE WAIVER REQUEST TO THOSE TWO EXEMPTIONS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER.
UM, HERE IT IS IN A LITTLE MORE, UH, DETAILED LANGUAGE AGAIN, THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS FROM THE USE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN OUR EXISTING PROVISIONS.
UM, THAT REQUIRING ONLY PERSONS RELATING TO THE RESIDENT OF PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO RESIDE AND THE ACCESSORY DWELLING, WHICH MEANS, UM,
[03:30:01]
THEY'RE REQUESTING THE ABILITY TO HAVE FOLKS OTHER THAN FAMILY, UH, AS DEFINED BY CODE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE.AND ALSO PROHIBITING RENTAL OF THE SECOND DWELLING SEPARATELY FROM THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING.
UM, ESEC, ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE RENTAL.
UM, AND THE INTENT IN SPEAKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE LONG-TERM RENTAL.
UM, AS THEY ARE WORKING TO AGE IN PLACE, THERE IS A SEPTIC SYSTEM LIMITATION THAT THERE IS A DRAIN FIELD THAT SERVES BOTH OF THOSE STRUCTURES.
AND SO THE DRAIN FIELD CAPACITY IS LIMITED TO SIX PEOPLE, THEREFORE THE TOTAL OCCUPANCY OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING AND THE ACCESSORY DWELLING MUST BE STRICTLY LIMITED.
AND UM, AGAIN, THE STANDARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS APPLY, UM, THAT THERE'S CARBON MONOXIDE AND SMOKE DETECTORS.
EMERGENCY ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED TO THE ACCESSORY HOUSING UNIT.
UM, MAX OVERNIGHT OCCUPANCY, AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT DRAIN FIELD.
SO THERE'S A MAXIMUM OF SIX PEOPLE, INCLUDING RESIDENTS, GUESTS, AND RENTERS AND OTHER OCCUPANTS.
UM, AND AGAIN, JUST GOING THROUGH THOSE EXEMPTIONS, UM, OR EXCEPTIONS THAT THEY'RE SEEKING WITH REGARDS TO, UM, FOR USE OTHER THAN FAMILY AND FOR RENTAL, UM, THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD EXPIRE IN, UM, LAST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2028.
SO FOR, UM, ALSO THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IS STANDARD AS WE SEE ANY, UM, TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE NOTIFIED.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
UM, MS. SODA, THE, UH, GO BACK TO THE ISSUE OF THE SEPTIC AND THE SIX PEOPLE.
SO THAT'S TOTAL WITH THE TWO, UH, RESIDENCES COMBINED? YES, MA'AM.
SO, AND THE UNIT THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE RENTED IS HOW MANY SQUARE FEET? SO GARAGE INCLUDED, IT'S ABOUT 1600 SQUARE FEET.
THERE'S 1800 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE AND EIGHT, SORRY, 800 THANK YOU.
800, UM, SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE UPSTAIRS THAT HAS TWO BEDROOMS, ONE FULL BATH, A KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM, AND AN 800 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE.
SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE IF APPROVED TO RENT THAT BUILDING? YES, MA'AM.
INCLUDING THE RENT, THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND THE GARAGE.
AS A UNIT, I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THE ABSOLUTE DEFINED USE IF THEY WILL RETAIN ANY USE OF THE GARAGE.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE SECOND STORY, THE UPPER LEVEL IS, UM, INTENDED TO BE RENTAL.
UM, AT, YOU MENTIONED TRANS, UM, TRANSFER OF THE CUP POTENTIALITY.
CAN WE MAKE, COULD WE MAKE A CUP CONDITIONAL ON THE CURRENT OWNER'S OCCUPYING THE HOUSE AND THEN IT WOULD'VE TO BE UP FOR, UM, APPLICATION IF THE CURRENT OWNERS EVER LEFT? LAND USE AND ZONING IS CONSIDERED TO BE A CHANGE ONLY IN THE LAND.
AND SO IT'S NOT, WE COULDN'T DO THAT APPROPRIATE TO, TO HAVE IT TIED TO A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.
AND THEN SECOND, CAN WE PROHIBIT SHORT TERM RENTAL? ANY RENTAL LESS THAN A MONTH? LEGALLY? I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY REASON THAT COULD NOT BE PROHIBITED.
UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS TO HAVE IT AS A RENTAL.
UM, THEIR INTENT IS TO HAVE AN ACTUAL LONG-TERM OR, YOU KNOW, UM, MORE THAN 30 DAY RENTAL.
IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE AN AIRBNB.
THERE, THERE ISN'T ANY LEGAL REASON THAT YOU COULDN'T IMPOSE THAT AS A CONDITION.
AND THEN THE FINAL QUESTION I HAVE IS, UM, HOW DO WE ACTUALLY MONITOR OR ENFORCE A SIX PERSON? ONE, UM, ONE WE ARE COMPLAINT DRIVEN, BUT TWO, THE DRAIN FIELD AND ALL OF THE SEPTIC OVERSIGHT IS OVERSEEN BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
SO IF WE RECEIVED A CALL, UM, THAT THEY WERE, AND POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, 10 PEOPLE ARE THERE, UM, STAYING THERE LONG TERM, STAYING OVERNIGHT, WE WOULD NOTIFY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND THEN WE WOULD ALSO CITE THEM WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLATION.
BUT WE WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE DRAIN FIELD OURSELVES.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD I LIKE TO? THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.
[03:35:03]
GOOD EVENING.AND MY HUSBAND WILLIAM IS IN THE MAROON T-SHIRT IN THE BACK.
HE'S NOT AS BRAVE AS I AM TONIGHT.
CAN YOU JUST GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MS. HEINZ? PARDON YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? 24 86 LOG CABIN ROAD.
ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO JUST TALK TO THE BOARD? I THINK MS. LASWELL HAD A QUESTION ON, UM, JUST FROM HEARING THE QUESTIONS.
UM, OUR INTENT SOLELY IS TO SUPPLEMENT OUR SOCIAL SECURITY.
WE DID RUN OUR BUSINESS FROM THAT GARAGE FOR 26 YEARS, TERRY, I THINK 25, 26 YEARS.
UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TELL EVERYBODY THAT YOU SHOULD OWN YOUR OWN BUSINESS, MA'AM, BECAUSE YOU GET RICH MA'AM.
YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
OH, I'D LIKE TO TELL Y'ALL THAT IT'S GOOD TO OWN YOUR OWN BUSINESS, UM, BECAUSE YOU GET RICH, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE.
SO WE DO NEED IT FOR INCOME SO THAT WE CAN STAY IN GLAND AND I'LL, I WILL SAY WE HOPE TO LIVE AND DIE IN GLAND.
UM, AS FAR AS THE DRAINFIELD SITUATION, IT IS ONLY TERRY AND I THERE.
UM, WE'VE NEVER HAD A BIG FAMILY THERE.
THE ONLY TIME WE HAD MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE LIVING THERE WAS WHEN MY MOM WAS LIVING WITH US BEFORE SHE PASSED YOU, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S ONLY TWO IN THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND I WOULD LIMIT IT.
I PERSONALLY WOULD LIMIT IT IN THE LEASE TO BE NO MORE THAN FOUR PEOPLE.
SO THERE'S YOUR SIX TOTAL? I, I WOULD SAY MORE OFTEN.
IT MAY NOT BE MORE THAN ONE OR TWO.
BUT, AND IT IS DEFINITELY FOR LONG TERM.
I ALSO WOULD HAVING THE LEASE YEAR MINIMUM FOR RENTAL.
BECAUSE WE NEED THE LONG TERM.
WE NEED IT LITERALLY TO SUPPLEMENT INCOME.
EASY EMERGENCY ACCESS BECAUSE WE HAD OUR BUSINESS THERE, PLENTY OF PARKING BECAUSE WE HAD TRUCKS AT THE TIME, UM, DEFINITELY TO CODE.
WE WERE IN CONSTRUCTION, THAT WAS PART OF OUR BUSINESS.
SO WE MADE SURE OF THAT WHEN WE BUILT THE STRUCTURE FOR OURSELVES.
AND ONE THING EVEN IT DOES NOT AFFECT EVEN SAY SCHOOL BUS ROUTES BECAUSE RIGHT ACROSS FROM OUR HOUSE, THERE'S A CROSSROADS, UM, LOG CABIN AND THE CROSSROADS COMES IN.
THAT'S THE BUS STOP FOR THE ELEMENTARY AND FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL.
SO I REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT WE'RE IN AN OPTIMAL POSITION TO DO THIS AND WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE THIS AS LONG-TERM RENTAL.
SO JUST, UH, FROM A, I GUESS FROM THE COUNTY STAND, FROM MY STANDPOINT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING AND I BELIEVE IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, SOMETHING IN THE CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRED IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE REQUIRE YEAR'S LEASE, BUT DEFINITELY NOT SHORT TERM RENTAL.
AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE SIX PERSON MAXIMUM AND YOU'VE DISCUSSED THAT.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER CONCERN THAT WE DON'T HAVE, UM, IN AN ISSUE WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ON THAT.
AND AND MA MA'AM? MA'AM, I'M I'M GONNA ASK MS LAST KLUTZ QUESTION DIRECTLY 'CAUSE THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK.
WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, TO ALLOW THE COUNT, WOULD YOU BE AGREEABLE TO US ADDING A PROVISION IN HERE THAT LEASE LEASE TERMS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR? YES.
AND AGAIN, THE REASON IS NOT SO MUCH TO, YOU KNOW, DON'T BELIEVE WHEN YOU SAY THAT'S YOUR REPRESENTATION, BUT IF THE PROPERTY SELLS THESE CONDITIONS, TRANSFER TO THE NEW PERSON.
SO LET'S CAPTURE, LET'S CAPTURE THAT AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE, YOU SAY ON THE RECORD.
UM, I'M LOOKING TO OUR ATTORNEY TO SEE IF SHE CAN CAPTURE LIKE CONDITION.
I, I HAVE BEEN WRITING IT JUST CHANGED A LITTLE BIT FROM LESS THAN 30 DAYS TO A A YEAR.
ALRIGHT, SO WE WANT TO ADD AS AN EIGHTH CONDITION.
UM, LEASE, THE LEASE TERM FOR THE ACCESSORY HOUSING UNIT MUST BE A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR.
ARE YOU, DOES THAT MSS DOES THAT SOUND AGREEABLE? YOU I AGREE TO ADD THAT AS OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DOES SEE, NO, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[03:40:02]
E MOTION MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE, LEMME GET TO THE RIGHT PAGE HERE.I'M SCROLLING AROUND THE OTHER, WELL, I'LL COME BACK TO IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I AND BOARD, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GRANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 2023 EIGHT FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY HOUSING UNIT AT 24 86 LOG CABIN ROAD.
SUBJECT TO THE, UH, SEVEN CONDITIONS LISTED PLUS AN EIGHTH CONDITION THAT READS AS FOLLOWS.
UH, LEASE TERMS FOR THE ACCESSORY HOUSING UNIT MUST BE A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL, VOTE.
OUR SIX CASES OVER DOWN DISTRICT FIVE.
DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT THREE.
[5. 5804: District 3 - RZ-2023-00007 Application by Ingrid E. Vetter requesting]
ALL RIGHT.UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, YOU ALL HAVE A REZONING CASE BEFORE YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION.
THE ACREAGE OF THE AREA IS 10 ACRES.
IT'S CURRENTLY, UM, ZONED AS A TWO AGRICULTURAL LIMITED.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE AS A R ONE RESIDENTIAL LIMITED WITH PROFFERS, AND THE INTENT IS TO CREATE ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT ON THIS PROPERTY.
THE LOCATION IS AT 1600 BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD AND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
IT'S LOCATED WITHIN DEERFIELD.
THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AS RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA.
UM, SO JUST TO ORIENT YOU ALL, UM, THIS IS WHERE, UM, THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED HERE, AND THEN OVER HERE YOU CAN SEE IT'S ACTUALLY SITUATED THE PARCEL IN QUESTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING FOR THE REZONING BETWEEN BLAKELY ROAD AND BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD.
UM, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AS RULE AND ENHANCEMENT AREA, BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THE, UM, SUBDIVISION IS ABOUT 0.9 MILES FROM OUR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION FACILITY, UM, THAT IS HERE JUST OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE VILLAGE.
UM, ALSO THE ZONING MAP AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, IS A TWO WITH ALL, UM, NEAR, NEARBY ADJOINING ADJACENT PROPERTIES BEING A TWO.
SO JUST A SUMMARY OF THIS CASE.
UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO CREATE ONE NEW FOUR ACRE LOT.
UM, YOU MAY RECALL I MENTIONED THAT IT IS A 10 ACRE LOT.
THEY'RE LOOKING TO GET A FOUR ACRE LOT.
UM, THE INTENT IS TO SPLIT INTO FOUR AND SIX ACRES, NAMELY BECAUSE, UM, WHERE THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING IS LOCATED, THE DRAIN FIELD AND ALL SUBSTRUCTURES, UM, ENCOMPASS AN AREA THAT IS ABOUT SIX ACRES.
SO THERE'S NOT A WAY TO CLEANLY BISECT THE PROPERTY TO MAKE IT FIVE AND FIVE, HENCE THE ASK FOR, UM, A FOUR ACRE LOT WITH RETAINING SIX ACRES.
UM, THE EASEMENT FOR THE NEW LOT WILL ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD, AND THERE WILL NOT BE ACCESS, UM, ACCESS WILL BE PROHIBITED TO THE PRIVATE ROAD.
THERE'S NO CA CAPITAL IMPACT MODEL TO CREATE, UM, FOR ONE NEW LOT BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASH PROFFER AT THIS TIME FOR THAT.
UM, AND JUST SOME INTERESTING BACKGROUND ON THIS.
THIS PROPERTY ORIGINALLY WAS RECORDED AS TWO LOTS.
UM, THESE LOTS WERE COMBINED IN 1979, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IS THE TIME THAT, AROUND THE TIME THAT OUR APPLICANT AND HER HUSBAND ORIGINALLY FIRST ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND AGAIN, AS PROPOSED, AVERAGE LOT SIZE WOULD BE FIVE ACRES FOR THE TWO LOTS, SIX AND FOUR TO BE EXACT ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTIES.
ALL IN DEERFIELD AND HILLCREST.
SUBDIVISIONS RANGE FROM 2.1 ACRES TO 10.4 ACRES.
UM, THE MEDIAN AND AVERAGE LOT SIZES IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS IS ABOUT FIVE ACRES.
SO ONE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING WAS APPROVED IN DEERFIELD IN 2005 TO CREATE A NEW BUILDING LOT, AND THAT WAS, UM, FOUR ACRES, UM, USING OUR 2005 GUIDELINES.
UM, THIS APPLICATION IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE
[03:45:01]
RULE ENHANCEMENT AREA LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE COMP PLAN.UM, PER STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON THIS REZONING REQUEST ON JUNE 27TH, 2023.
THERE WERE SIX ATTENDEES INCLUDING, INCLUDING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, PUCK AND MYERS ATTENDEES EXPRESS NO CONCERN AND GENERALLY CONVEYED SUPPORT.
WE HAVE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS REZONING REQUEST.
WE'VE RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT AND THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
THE OPPOSITION LETTERS GENERALLY OBJECT TO CREATING ADDITIONAL LOTS.
THIS CASE WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN AUGUST WITH AN APPROVAL RECOMMENDED AT A 4.0.
TWO PEOPLE SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION AND TWO PEOPLE SPOKE IN OPPOSITION.
UM, AND SO I I MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THE ACCESS.
UM, SO AGAIN, WE, WE HAVE OUR STANDARD, UM, KIND OF EFFORT TO GO THROUGH PROFFERS TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SEE IS WHAT WE GET OR WHAT WE TALK ABOUT IS WHAT WE GET AS THE END RESULT.
SO THERE SHALL BE A LIMIT TO TWO SUBDIVISION LOTS.
THE PROPERTY SHALL DEVELOP IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT HAS BEEN ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A AND ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC ROAD.
NO ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM BLAKELY ROAD, WHICH IS THE PRIVATE ROAD.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU, MR. MS. LAS COLLETTE.
OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. THERE WE GO.
SO THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED A TWO ZONING, ALLOWS RESIDENCES ON HOW MANY ACRES.
WHAT IS THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR A TWO? I'M SO GLAD YOU ASKED.
I FEEL NERDY NOW, UM, ON A TWO, THE, UM, TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE IS A MINIMUM OF THE TABLE DOES NOT ACTUALLY COVER THAT.
I WILL SAY THAT THE ADJACENT, UM, DEVELOPMENTS AT RANGE FROM TWO TO 10 ACRES.
THIS LOT IN OF ITSELF IS A 10 ACRE LOT.
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY TWO PARCELS THAT THEN WERE COMBINED BACK INTO A 10 ACRE PARCEL FOR THE EXACT ZONING IN QUESTION, THOUGH I WILL DEFER TO MR. COLEMAN.
UM, UH, TOM COLEMAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER IN AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS GENERALLY TWO ACRES EXCEPT FOR, UH, EXCEPT FRONTING ON THE, UM, THE ROAD, LIKE THE, THE LOT FRONTING ON BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD WOULD'VE TO BE THREE ACRES.
THAT WOULD BE THE, THE, THE MINIMUMS IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
SO, UH, SO THANK YOU MR. COLEMAN.
SO THIS PROPERTY, THE 10 ACRES ALL FRONTS BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD? CORRECT? CURRENTLY.
SO IN THEORY, UM, BY RIGHT, THEY COULD PUT THREE RESIDENCES ON THIS.
UH, WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE IS DEERFIELD IS WHAT'S CALLED A MAJOR SUBDIVISION.
WHEN THIS WAS CREATED, IT WAS A MAJOR SUBDIVISION.
WHEN THEY CREATE THAT MAJOR SUBDIVISION, THEY USE UP ALL THE SUBDIVISION RIGHTS.
SO WHAT, SO AT THAT TIME, WHEN THEY GOT THE SUBDIVISION APPROVED, WHATEVER THE AC ACRES WAS APPROVED, THAT'S WHAT THE LOTS WERE APPROVED FOR.
UM, SO LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS SITUATION, THEY ACTUALLY ERASED A PROPERTY LINE TO MAKE IT LARGER.
AND THAT'S WHY THIS ONE IS 10 ACRES, BUT DEERFIELD INCLUDES LOTS GENERALLY FROM FIVE ACRES TO, TO 10 ACRES IN SIZE.
SO NOW IF THEY WANT A SUB, SINCE IT'S A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND THEY'VE USED UP ALL THOSE BUY RIGHT SUBDIVISION SPLITS, THEY HAVE TO COME AND REZONE IT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO NOW DO ADDITIONAL SPLITS ON IT.
AND SO WHAT, IN THAT SUBDIVISION, WHAT IS THE SMALLEST LOT, UM, THE SMALLEST LOT, THE, WHAT WAS APPROVED WITH DEERFIELD, WHAT THE LOTS EXIST ARE TODAY? UM, BACK WHEN THE, WHEN THIS WAS THE, WHEN THIS SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED, IT WOULD'VE BEEN THE, THE TWO AND THREE ACRE MINIMUM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BUT I THINK UNDER 2023 RULES, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS WHATEVER THE LOT SIZES ARE FOR TODAY.
SO IF THEY WANNA SUBDIVIDE ANY OF THESE LOTS, THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT INTO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
AND THEN THAT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ESTABLISHES WHAT THE MINIMUM LIGHT SIZE ARE.
THE BOARD OFTEN SEES ARE OUR DISTRICT, AND THAT'S WHY WE OFTEN SEE THAT FIVE ACRES.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE HAVE FIVE ACRES IN A PRESENTATION.
UM, IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT AN RR IT'S AN R ONE.
THE MINIMUM LIGHT SIZE COULD BE LESS THAN THAT.
WELL, IF YOU GO STRICTLY BY THE ZONING,
[03:50:01]
FORGET THE SUBDIVISION, UH, A TWO IS MINIMUM TWO ACRES.AND R ONE IS A MINIMUM ONE AND A HALF, CORRECT? YES MA'AM.
SO, BUT THAT'S OVERRIDDEN BY THE SUBDIVISION.
THE, AGAIN, THE, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS A MAJOR SUBDIVISION WHEN KIND OF STEP BACK WHEN THE COUNTY CREATED THEIR, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, ALL THE PARCELS WERE CONSIDERED PARENT TRACKS AND ALL THE PARCELS WERE GIVEN CERTAIN SUBDIVISION RIGHTS.
UM, AND A LOT OF THOSE THAT ARE DONE, UM, ADMINISTER, UM, THESE ONE LOT HERE AND ONE LOT THERE.
WE APPROVE THOSE ADMINISTRATIVELY, THOSE DON'T COME TO THE BOARD.
THEY DON'T COME TO THE PLAN COMMISSION.
UM, WHEN THEY COME TO THE BOARD IS WHEN SOMEONE WANT, WAS WHEN THOSE BUYRIGHT SPLITS ARE USED UP, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD FOR REZONING.
AND SO THE BOARD SEES PROBABLY TWO OR THREE, THREE OR FOUR OF THESE A YEAR WHERE THEY'RE SEEING A, A ZONING DISTRICT CREATE ONE NEW LOT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT HERE IS A REZONING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY BY RIGHT SPLITS IN, THEY CAN'T COME INTO THE CURRENT AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND, AND CREATED THE DISTAL SPLIT THAT WAS USED UP IN 1979.
SO THEY HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THAT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, THE R ONE DISTRICT.
SO HAD THEY NOT COMBINED THESE TWO LOTS TO BEGIN WITH, THEY WOULD BE TWO SEPARATE LOTS? CORRECT.
AND THEY WOULD'VE BEEN UNDER THE SUBDIVISION, THE RULES AT THAT TIME? RIGHT.
UM, IF I MAY, SO, UM, THEY, YOU KEEP SAYING THEY, WHEN THEY USED UP THE, THE SPLITS, THE, UM, THEY BEING, IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION, THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION? THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION? CORRECT.
AND HOW MANY LOTS ARE IN THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION APPROXIMATELY? I DON'T RECALL.
SO LET ME TAKE WHAT MS. MS. LASETTE WAS ASKING AND JUST PHRASE IT ANOTHER WAY.
WHAT CAN THEY GET BY, RIGHT? IS THERE ANYTHING THEY CAN DO WITH THIS CURRENT LOT? BY, RIGHT, I MEAN BY RIGHT.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS THAT THE A ONE DISTRICT ALLOWS, THEY COULD REQUEST A C U P, UM, THEY FORWARD THE WHATEVER C P USES, BUT AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL GOES BASED ON A 10 ACRE LOT IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE ONE DWELLING UNIT.
SO THEY COULDN'T, THEY COULDN'T DO FIVE AND FIVE.
WE'RE NOT DOING THE SIX AND FOUR BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTY CONFIGURING A DRAIN FIELD IN THIS, IN THIS SITUATION, WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED IS THAT TO KEEP THE, UM, THE, THE DRIVEWAY, THE, THE GARAGE, THE HOUSE, THE DRAIN FIELD, EVERYTHING ON ONE LOT, THEY WOULD NEED THAT SIX ACRES.
THEY COULDN'T FIT ALL THAT ON THE FIVE ACRES, BUT THEY COULDN'T, THEY WOULD STILL BE BEFORE US.
IF THEY COULD FIT ALL THOSE THINGS AND DO FIVE AND FIVE, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE REZONING TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO SPLIT THE LOT.
SO THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION IS, YOU SAY THEY BEING THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION HAVE USED ALL, SO ANY OTHER LOT IN THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION? NOPE.
THERE ARE NO OTHER LOTS IN THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION THAT COULD, COULD SUBDIVIDE ABSENT REZONING.
THEY HAVE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS PROCESS.
THEY WOULD, THEY WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE.
SO THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS LOT VIS-A-VIS THE OTHER LOTS IN DEER, CORRECT? IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY CAN DO.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE WITH THE ADDRESS, THE COURT? YES, SIR.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, MS. LETTER? MY NAME IS INGRID VETER.
AND, UM, YEAH, SPEAKING WHEN I, WHEN I'M, WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE, UM, OR SELL, UM, MY HUSBAND AND I HAD ALWAYS THOUGHT OF MAYBE OUR GRANDDAUGHTER GETTING THE BACK PORTION.
AND SO I I, I NEVER DREAMED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE THIS BIG PROCESS AND THAT I'D MAKE SO MANY PEOPLE UNHAPPY.
BUT I'M STILL GOING TO ASK THAT I GET THIS FOUR ACRES THAT I CAN RETAIN FOR MY GRANDDAUGHTER WHO'S SITTING HERE WITH HER FIANCE.
THANK YOU MS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THAT? WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE.
WE'LL, UH, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU AFTER WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I'M GONNA OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[03:55:10]
MY NAME IS JENNIFER FARKIS.I LIVE AT 1 5 5 1 LOU LANE, WHICH IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY ON THAT BLAKELY ROAD IN THE HILLCREST SUBDIVISION.
AND SO I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, I'M SURE FOR YOU.
BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER, UM, NOT APPROVING THIS REZONING, BUT WE ARE CONCERNED THAT APPROVING THIS ONE WILL OPEN THE DOORS TO OTHERS DIVIDING THEIR PROPERTY AND, UM, CREATING JUST KIND OF A DOMINO EFFECT OF PEOPLE SPLITTING UP THEIR LAND FOR MONEY OR, UM, PERSONAL USE.
UM, WE DON'T KNOW OF A HARDSHIP THAT IS IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
UM, SO, AND THEN, UH, MAJOR CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT, UM, THE AREA CANNOT, UM, STAND UP TO MORE DEVELOPMENT.
WE, THE BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD IS A SINGLE LANE ROAD WITH NO CENTER LINE WITH MULTIPLE BLIND CURVES, LIKE WAS SAID.
UM, IT GOES THROUGH THE STATE FARM LAND AND, UM, WE HAVE LOTS OF WALKING TRAFFIC AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, NOT THAT ONE HOUSE IS GOING TO BREAK THE ROAD OR CAUSE UM, TROUBLE, BUT AGAIN, IF WE OPEN THIS UP TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE REZONING AND DIVIDING THEIR PROPERTY AND ADDING HOUSES, THEN I DON'T THINK THAT OUR AREA CAN WITHSTAND THAT, ESPECIALLY THE BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD.
AND THEN, UM, ONE LAST LITTLE THING IS JUST THAT WE DO MAINTAIN THAT PRIVATE BLAKELY ROAD, UM, OUT OF OUR OWN POCKETS, AND THE LAND DOES SLOPE DOWN TOWARDS BLAKELY ROAD.
SO WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OR CLEARING OF THAT LAND AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT OUR PRIVATE ROAD AND, UM, LEAVE US WASHED OUT.
SO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR COMMENTS.
I LIVE AT 1 5 6 3 BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD IN THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION.
I AM HERE TO SHARE MY OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING PROPOSAL OF 1600 BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD IN THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION.
I MOVED TO MY CURRENT ADDRESS ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO FROM A CLUSTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ON A BUSY ROAD WITH NO PRIVACY AND LOTS OF NOISE TO THIS ONE TO HAVE SPACE PEACE, LOTS OF TREES, AND LITTLE TO NO VIEW OF THE HOUSES NEXT DOOR OR ACROSS THE STREET.
I RECENTLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS REZONING PROPOSAL AND WAS MADE AWARE THAT IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD CHANGE FROM AN A TWO ZONING TO AN R ONE ZONE, ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LANDOWNERS IN DEERFIELD AND OTHER SUBDIVISIONS NEARBY TO HAVE CONSENT TO DIVIDE THEIR LOT OR LOTS AND FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I BOUGHT MY HOME IN THIS RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE SPACIOUSNESS OF THE LOTS, THE BEAUTIFUL GREENERY, AND THE PEACEFULNESS OF NOT WORRYING THAT SOMEONE WOULD BUILD A HOME IN MY FRONT SIDE OR BACKYARD.
I MOVED HERE WITH THE TRUST OF THIS SAFETY NET.
INGRID VETTER, THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT FORTH THIS PROPOSAL, HAS MOVED OUT OF STATE AND WILL NOT SUFFER ANY CONSEQUENCES THIS R ONE ZONING PRECEDENT COULD BRING.
SHE DID NOT SUBDIVIDE HER PROPERTY WHILE SHE LIVED HERE, BECAUSE MOST LIKELY THE SAME PEACE OF MIND AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN SHE AND HER HUSBAND BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THEY WANTED THE PEACE AND THE SPACE JUST AS WE ALL DO, WHO HAVE PURCHASED HOMES IN DEERFIELD.
UM, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT, GOOSE LAND IS VERY BEAUTIFUL, AND WE THANK YOU FOR NURTURING THE COUNTY WHILE KEEPING US SAFE AND ENRICHING OUR LIVES WITH PLANNED AND PURPOSEFUL DECISIONS.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS HAD IN MIND AND WHAT THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTIES WERE BUYING.
SPACE, PRIVACY, PEACE OF MIND AND SECURITY.
PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE REZONING.
FOLKS, IF YOU GUYS CAN COME DOWN FRONT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TO SAVE TIME FROM WALKING BACK AND FORTH.
[04:00:01]
HELLO, MY NAME IS DAN DOTY.I LIVE IN, UH, STRAWBERRY RUN, WHICH IS A LESS THAN A MILE FROM THIS PROPERTY.
I DID BUY, UH, 11 ACRES RIGHT ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY, AND I JUST TOOK OUT A BUILDING PERMIT LAST WEEK.
UM, I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY THINKING THAT I KNEW WHAT I WAS GETTING INTO BECAUSE MOST OF THESE WATTS HAVE BEEN BUILT AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE HAD AN OPTION TO SPLIT 'EM.
UM, THERE'S AREAS IN THE COUNTY THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED FOR HIGHER DENSITIES.
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE AREAS, AND I'D LIKE IT TO REMAIN THAT WAY.
I LIVE AT 1610 BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD, AND WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REZONING.
MY HUSBAND AND I AND OUR NOW TWO YEAR OLD SON HAVE LIVED NEXT DOOR TO MS. VEDER SINCE 2016, AND SHE'S BEEN A WONDERFUL NEIGHBOR IN FRONT.
OUR OPPOSITION IS NOT PERSONAL.
IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR COMMUNITY.
IN ADDITION TO THE BREATHTAKING SCENERY, ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT APPEALED TO US WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOME WAS THAT, WAS THAT IT WAS ZONED A TWO.
AS I'M SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE, THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR LIMITING LIMITING DEVELOPMENT TO MAJOR VILLAGES AND DESIGNATED GROWTH AREAS, AND HAS A STRONG FOCUS ON KEEPING THE COUNTY'S RURAL RURAL CHARACTER BY KEEPING IT 85% RURAL.
THE SCHOOL CORRESPONDS TO THE CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY WITH ALMOST 90% OF THEM BEING CURRENTLY ZONED A ONE AND A TWO.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS BETWEEN MANNEQUIN AND COURTHOUSE VILLAGES ARE IN A RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA.
ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS AREA IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THESE AREAS OF THE COUNTY PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE URBAN, IN THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM URBAN SPRAWL DUE TO OUR PROXIMITY TO RICHMOND AND GROWTH IN SURROUNDING COUNTIES.
REQUESTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ARE ONLY EXPECTED TO INCREASE, ESPECIALLY IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE COUNTY WHERE WE ARE LOCATED.
IF THIS ZONING IS APPROVED, IT WOULD BE THE FIRST R ONE WITHIN MILES OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHILE MANY WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS JUST ONE HOUSE, THE MAJOR ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IS PRECEDENT.
IF ONE LOT OWNER IS ALLOWED TO REZONE THEIR LOT TO R ONE, ALLOWING FOR SMALLER PARCELS, OTHER HOMEOWNERS WILL SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY, WHETHER FOR FINANCIAL GAIN OR OTHER REASONS AND WANT TO DO THE SAME.
SHOULD OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING AREAS START TO TRANSITION FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY HOUSING, IT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE LOOK AND FEEL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE CONTRADICT THE GOALS OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I SHOULD NOTE THAT WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT FOR GLAND TO CONTINUE TO BE A THRIVING COMMUNITY AND MEET THE DEMANDS OF ITS GROWING POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARY, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHTFUL AND INTENTIONAL AND STAY WITHIN THOSE DESIGNATED AREAS, NOT ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
LAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AS MENTIONED IN THE PLAN, THE CONVERSION OF LAND IN THE RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREAS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE MONITORED BY THE COUNTY.
AND WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION THIS EVENING.
WE ASK THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS REZONING AND SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE PLAN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION, AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO MAKING GLAND A COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE PROUD TO LIVE IN.
I'M JEFF CRAIG, 1552 BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD, ONE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
RECENTLY RETIRED FROM MARKEL CORPORATION AND, UM, ENJOYING MY RETIREMENT NOW FOR A YEAR.
UM, MY WIFE AND I OWN 1552 BEAVER DAM, THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO 1600.
UM, IT'S 10 PLUS ACRE PROPERTY.
AND AFTER SIGNIFICANT REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN ABANDONED HOUSE, WE HAVE CREATED AN EXCEPTIONAL HOME, INCLUDING BEAUTIFUL GARDENS AND ORCHARD, NUMEROUS OUTBUILDINGS SERVICING THE RESIDENTS AND THE GROUNDS.
WE'VE ENCOUNTERED EXPEN EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY PROBLEMS ALONG THE WAY, INCLUDING A REPLACEMENT DRAIN FIELD, INCLUDING GIANT TREE REMOVALS AND CLEARING THE OVERGROWN ACREAGE, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN BEAUTIFIED ON THE BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD CORRIDOR.
NOW THAT WE'VE MADE IT JUST RIGHT, MS. VETTER HAS CHOSEN TO SPLIT UP HER ADJOINING 10 PLUS ACRE LOT TO PRESERVE FOR HER GRANDDAUGHTER.
UH, WE OPPOSE THE REZONING REQUESTS IN SPITE OF THREE OPPOSING NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THE TWO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS MOST AFFECTED BY THE CREATION OF ANOTHER LOT IN DEERFIELD.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED FOUR OH IN FAVOR, UM, OF THE ZONING RE RE REZONING REQUESTS.
WE FEEL THIS WAS UNREASONABLE RESULT CONSIDERING THAT BOTH ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE PRESENT AND VOICED THEIR OPPOSITION AT THE MEETING.
WE WERE TOLD THE APPLICATION FROM THE PROPERTY, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
[04:05:01]
WAS NOT A DONE DEAL YET.THE VOTE WAS TAKEN APPROVED FOUR OH BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, AND LAND SURVEYS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
IN FACT, THE HOUSE IS NOW LISTED, UH, WITH THE, THE REZONED ACREAGE ON IT.
UH, IT SEEMS MORE LIKE A A DONE DEAL TO US THAN THAN WHAT COULD BE THOUGHT.
UH, THIS REZONING DOESN'T FIT THE CHARACTER OF DEERFIELD AND OLDER MAJOR SUBDIVISION HERE IN CROZIER THAT CONTAINS 16 LOTS PER GLAND'S, G I S WITH ONLY 12 LOT OWNERS.
THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IN DEERFIELD IS 8.97 ACRES BASED UPON OWNERSHIP WITH LARGER SIZE HOMES AND EXPANSIVE GROUND, SETTING IT APART FROM OTHER NEARBY SUBDIVISIONS.
WE FEEL THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS REFERENCED TO ANY COMPARABLES IN HILLCREST IS DISINGENUOUS AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE SITUATION WHEN IT COMES TO LOT SIZES IN DEERFIELD.
HILLCREST IS NOT COMPARABLE TO DEERFIELD.
A GRAVEL ROAD SERVICED BY THE H O A HILLCREST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS IT INFLUENCED THE, UH, VOTES OF THE COMMISSION, I BELIEVE.
UM, INTERESTINGLY, THE SUPPORTERS OF THE ZONING REQUESTS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WERE THE TWO LARGEST LOT HOLDERS IN DEERFIELD, ONE OF WHICH IS A VET FAMILY MEMBER.
NEITHER SUPPORTERS GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH NOISE LIGHTS, CONSTRUCTION AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC IN THEIR FRONT YARD LIKE WE WILL HAVE TO CONFRONT AS THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY.
ACCESSING THE NEW LOT WILL PARALLEL OUR NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE FACING OUR FRONT DOOR.
OUR RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT OF OUR HOME IS AT STAKE.
I'M NOT SURE THEY'LL EVER BE A FAMILY MEMBER ON THE NEW LOT IF THAT WAS THE ACTUAL REASON FOR REZONING.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY DIDN'T REQUEST A FAMILY DIVISION PER STATED COUNTY PROCEDURE.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD WE COULD DO.
THE ONLY WAY WE COULD SPLIT OUR LOT UP, UH, IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE AND RESULTED IN ONE 14 ACRE BEAVER DAM CLEE ROAD LOT BEING SPLIT INTO SIX AND EIGHT ACRE LOTS WITH TWO NEW HOMES, ONE OF WHICH IS A BEAVER DAM CREEK ADDRESS AND THE OTHER ON BLAKELY.
AND FOR SOME REASON, THE VETERAN PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING THE PROFFERS WERE CHANGED TO ALTER THE RESPONSE DATES AND TO ELIMINATE ANY DRIVEWAY ONTO THE NEW LOT TO EXIT ONTO BLAKELY IN SPITE OF THE FACT.
MR. CRAIG, YOU NEED YOU TO WRAP IT UP, PLEASE.
IN SPITE OF THE FACT THERE WAS A, A COMMUNITY, A T V TRAIL THAT SHE ALLOWED CARVED ON HER PROPERTY.
FINALLY, WE FEEL THIS IS JUST ANOTHER DILUTION OF GLAND COUNTY'S CHARACTER.
I'VE LIVED HERE FOR THE 95 WHEN LOTS WERE LARGE AND SPACIOUS.
I LIVED IN SANDY HOOK AND NOW CROZIER.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT LOT SIZES ARE SHRINKING IN A WAY TO CREATE MORE HENRICO OR WORSE TURNING GLAND INTO AN EXTENSION OF SHORE PUMP.
IT'S HAPPENING ALREADY ON ROUTE SIX AND ROUTE TWO 50 CORRIDORS TO ALLOW A 10 ACRE LOT IN THE HEART OF DEERFIELD TO BE CHOPPED INTO A SMALL FOUR ACRE LOT IS AGAINST THE CHARACTER OF THIS SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS THAT OF THE COUNTY.
I LIVE AT 1575 BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD.
I'VE BEEN THERE NOW FOR 32 YEARS.
I INITIALLY BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY, IT WAS 15 ACRES WHEN I BOUGHT IT.
MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, MRS. AND MR. HAM TOOK THREE OF THOSE ACRES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POND.
SO ALREADY THE PRECEDENT, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, HAS BEEN SET THAT SUBDIVISION HAS HAPPENED ON THAT ROAD.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR, THERE ARE 11 LOTS ON BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S ONE LOT LEFT, 10 ACRES AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT CAN STILL BE DEVELOPED FOR A HOME.
IF MY SISTER-IN-LAW DIVIDES HER PROPERTY, IT'S GONNA BE 12 PIECES OF PROPERTY.
AT WORST, THERE'S GONNA BE TWO MORE HOUSES ON THAT ROAD.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A MAJOR IMPACT EITHER ON BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD IN THIS, UH, DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION OR AFTER THAT AS WE EXIT ONTO ROUTE SIX.
AND I I'M FOR THIS, UH, DIVISION.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, NO THANK YOU.
HELLO? HI, MY NAME IS MICHAEL STREET.
UH, I LIVE AT 1610 BEAVER DAM CREEK.
UM, I'M, WE'RE ALSO DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO, UH, THE PROPOSED REZONING.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE LIVED IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND AND ITS COUNTY IN RIKKA FOR MANY YEARS, AND WE MOVED TO GLAND TO, UH, ESCAPE THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT THAT SEEMS TO BE CREEPING IN EVERY SINGLE DIRECTION FROM, UM, THOSE, THOSE CITIES AND COUNTIES.
UM, IF THIS ALLOWS, IS ALLOWED TO BECOME R ONE MANY AND MANY MAY FOLLOW AND CHANGE THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND PURPOSE OF ORIGINAL A TWO PLANNING.
AS YOU KNOW THAT I THINK THE MINIMUM LOT FOR AN R ONE IS ONE AND A HALF ACRES.
UM, SO, UH, YOU WILL DEFINITELY SEE OTHER APPLICANTS FOLLOWING SUIT.
UM, UH, PLEASE LEAVE THE GROWTH, UH, IN THE DESIGNATED AREAS AND KEEP THE INTENTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL A TWO ZONING INTACT.
OBVIOUSLY, I'M IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REZONING.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION, UM, THE ZONING APPROVAL PROCESS.
[04:10:01]
LIKE TO MAKE ONE LITTLE COMMENT.UM, I DON'T THINK ONE COMMUNITY MEETING AND NOTIFICATIONS ONLY FOR BORDERING NEIGHBORS IS SUFFICIENT WHEN CONSIDERING SUCH A AN, YOU KNOW, IMPACTFUL ZONING.
UM, THIS ZONING COULD CHANGE, UH, AND AFFECT MANY NEIGHBORS IN OUR AREA.
AND HOPEFULLY THE BOARD CONSIDER, CONSIDER A WAYS TO IMPROVE THE ENGAGEMENT NOTIFICATIONS, ESPECIALLY A CHANGE LIKE THIS CAN BACK IMPACT THE ENTIRE AREA.
AND I, AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO MENTION, UM, UM, I KNOW THERE WERE MANY MORE LETTERS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SENT TO EVEN THROUGH TODAY, UM, OF MORE OPPOSITION LETTERS UP TO 11 THAT WE KNOW, THAT WE KNOW OF.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I AM GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MS. FEDDER, WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HEARD THAT YOU'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON FROM THE, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? OR, I WOULD NEED YOU TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE IF YOU DO.
I AM HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY MY, MY HUSBAND AND I, WE, WELL, MY HUSBAND BOUGHT THREE.
COULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THE MICROPHONE? HE BOUGHT INITIALLY 40 YEARS AGO, THREE FIVE ACRE LOTS.
HE SOLD ONE FIVE ACRES TO HIS PARENTS NEXT DOOR.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE FITZGERALD'S STREETS LIVE NOW THAT I SOLD.
WE HAD TO SELL WHEN MY MOTHER-IN-LAW DIED.
AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY I CAN'T GET THREE LOTS, GET TWO LOTS OUT OF SOMETHING THAT WAS TWO LOTS.
AND I'M NOT CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF BUILDING SPACE ON BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD.
UM, I JUST, I, I JUST, AND I NEVER EVER EXPECTED THIS RESPONSE FROM MY NEIGHBORS, NOT NOT TAKING IT PERSONAL.
I UNDERSTAND THEIR ARGUMENT, BUT IT WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT FOR THREE HOUSES.
NOW THERE'S ONLY TWO, BUT I'M ASKING FOR FOUR ACRES ON THE TOP OF THE HILL WHERE THEY WILL HARDLY SEE THAT HOUSE.
AND IT WOULD HAVE, THE DRAIN FIELD WOULD BE PUT ON THE, GOING DOWN TO THE FIELD, WHICH FACES MY BROTHER-IN-LAW'S HOUSE WHO SPOKE A MINUTE AGO, WHO'S TOM'S EATER? THEY WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T IMPACT ANYBODY.
BOARD THOUGHTS MS. LASETTE? UM, SO THIS PROBABLY IS A QUESTION, UH, FOR MS. MCGEE.
SO THIS HAS COME UP REPEATEDLY IN DISCUSSION, UM, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT AND ALSO HAVE SEEN IT IN EMAILS AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE.
IT'S THIS NOTION OF SETTING PRECEDENT.
SO COULD YOU TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, HOW THAT WORKS? YES, MA'AM.
UM, LAND USE IS CONSIDERED TO BE, UH, INDIVIDUAL LIKE REAL ESTATE PEOPLE WHO'VE ENTERED INTO REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE BUYING THAT PROPERTY IN THAT HOUSE, NOT JUST ANY PROPERTY IN ANY HOUSE.
AND SO THE LAW AT TIMES WILL ENFORCE A REAL ESTATE SALE CONTRACT BECAUSE JUST GIVING SOME OTHER PIECE OF LAND ISN'T THE SAME THING.
AND REZONING AND LAND USE IS THE SAME CONCEPT.
AND THAT IS THE DECISION YOU MAKE ABOUT EACH PARCEL, EACH CASE BEFORE YOU IS INDIVIDUAL TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT PARCEL IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND SO IT DOES NOT SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DECISIONS.
IT IS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THIS CASE, THIS LAND IN FRONT OF YOU AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS.
SO AS USUAL, EVERY EVERY ZONING CASE IS UNIQUE TO THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND HAS AS DOES NOT SET PRECEDENT.
AND WE, WE, WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION UP HERE BEFORE ABOUT THAT, AND OF COURSE, AND BEING A LAWYER, UM, I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND IT, BUT BEING A LAWYER, I EVEN MAYBE, UH, GRASP WHAT MS. MCGEE IS TELLING US.
UH, IN MY, IN MY DAILY WORLD, I DEAL WITH THIS.
BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE LAWYERS COME UP HERE BEFORE US IN CASES AND SAY, IT'S M ONE OVER THERE.
SO THAT SUPPORTS MY M ONE APPLICATION, OR IT'S
[04:15:01]
B ONE OVER THERE, IT SUPPORTS.NOW, I'M NOT SAYING WE, WHAT, WHAT MCGEE IS MS. MCGEE IS TELLING US IS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AND LOOK AT IT AS STANDALONE.
WHEN YOU ZOOM OUT AND YOU LOOK AT THIS G I S MAP WITH, WITH, UM, AND I ZOOMED OUT FURTHER THAN WHAT WE SAW IN THE SLIDE, IT IS A TWO ALL AROUND THERE THAT WHILE THIS WILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL CASE AND EVERY CASE COMES BEFORE US INDIVIDUALLY, WE TALK ABOUT HARDSHIPS, WE TALK ABOUT NEEDS, WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS, BUT THAT GETS LOST IN THE RECORD.
AND IT'S INEVITABLE IN MY VIEW, THAT YOU START SEEING DARK OR GREEN POP OUT ALL AROUND HERE IS SURE, AS I'M SITTING HERE, SOME LAWYER, SOME APPLICANT'S GONNA COME FORWARD AND SAY, YOU GRANTED IT FOR THEM.
SO WE JUST NEED TO BE COGNIZANT THAT I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A DOMINO EFFECT.
MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY, BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING UP HERE TELLING US, SO I LOOK OVER AT LOU ROAD TO THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE SOME SMALLER LOTS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT MUST BE WHERE HILLCREST IS WHERE, WHERE LOU ROAD, UM, I'M ASSUMING, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE SUBDIVISIONS AND WE DON'T HAVE READY ACCESS TO THAT.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THIS GENERAL AREA, WHEN I FIRST MOVED INTO THIS COUNTY IN 2007 AND MET PEOPLE THERE, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS LARGER LOTS.
AND WE HEARD FROM MR. DOTY TALKING ABOUT JUST ACROSS THE STREET HE BOUGHT HIS 11 ACRES.
I IT'S AN INTERESTING HISTORY WHAT HAPPENED IN 79 AND HOW THEY COMBINED.
UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S, I I I AGREE, MS. BETTER YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, YOU'RE LIKE LOOKING AT THE WAY THINGS WERE, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THAT DRASTICALLY.
BUT WE HAVE SPENT THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, UH, ON THE, ON THE VILLAGE PLAN, CENTERVILLE VILLAGE PLAN, COURTHOUSE PLAN.
AND WE KEEP, I I, AND I'VE ASKED QUESTIONS, POINTED QUESTIONS.
IF WE PUT GROWTH IN THE DESIGNATED GROWTH AREAS, WILL THAT TAKE GROWTH PRESSURE OR, OR HOW CAN THIS BOARD MAKE SURE IT TAKES GROWTH PRESSURE OFF OF THE RURAL AREAS? THIS IS A RURAL, THIS IS MORE RURAL LIVING THAN SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING.
BUT IF WE APPROVE THIS, IT'S GONNA CHIP AWAY AT THE RURAL LIVING THAT'S IN THAT AREA.
AND IT'S, AND OTHERS ARE GONNA FOLLOW ASSURANCE.
SO I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS BOARD TO HOLD UP THE COMMITMENT THAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING THAT WE WANT TO DO THE GROWTH IN THE DESIGNATED GROWTH AREAS.
AND WE'RE ALSO, ON THE FLIP SIDE, GOING TO DO OUR PART TO TRY TO KEEP THE RURAL AREAS RURAL.
I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE HONORING THAT BY STARTING TO LET THE DOMINOES FALL WITH, WITH AN R ZONING IN THIS CASE.
UM, I'LL LET MS. MCGEE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THERE IS A LETTER OF THE LAW VERSUS SPIRIT OF THE LAW TYPE CONCEPT AT PLAY HERE.
AND SOMETIMES YOU RULE WITH YOUR, YOU MAKE A DECISION BASED ON YOUR CONSCIENCE.
AND THIS GOES THERE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, I'M GREATLY APPRECIATIVE OF ALL MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS BOARD, AND I THINK EACH ONE OF US WOULD, COULD SAY HONESTLY THAT IT WOULD BE OUR CONSCIENCE THAT WOULD BE DAMAGED, UH, IF WE APPROVE THIS.
AND THEN ANOTHER APPLICANT CAME UP AND, YOU KNOW, ANY TIME WHEN, UH, ANY ONE OF US WAS ON THIS BOARD AND CAME UP WITH THE SAME REQUEST, YOU CAN'T ALLOW ONE AND THEN NOT EXPECT THE, UH, SPIRIT OF THE LAW TO CONTINUE, EVEN IF IT'S NOT A LETTER OF THE LAW PRECEDENT.
SO, UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S CONCERNS.
UM, BUT IT IS A, THE, THE TERM DOMINO EFFECT IS, UH, VERY MUCH AT PLAY HERE.
THERE IS A, THAT THERE IS THAT PERCEPTION.
THERE ARE THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU WOULD HEAR FROM APPLICANTS AS, AS THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE CLEAR LETTER OF THE LAW, WHAT IS PRECEDENT AND WHAT PEOPLE THINK, WHAT APPLICANTS WOULD TELL YOU.
UM, BOTH ARE VALID PERSPECTIVES.
MR. PETERSON? YEAH, MR. CHAIR.
UM, I'M LOOKING AT THIS CASE THROUGH AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS HERE.
ONE IS WHAT'S THE ZONING? TWO IS WHAT'S THE DENSITY, AND THREE IS WHAT ARE THE PERMITTED USES? AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A TWO VERSUS R ONE, I'M TRYING TO COMPARE THOSE IN, IN MY MIND.
ON THE ZONING SIDE, WE'VE HEARD THAT, UM, IF
[04:20:01]
THIS IS APPROVED, IT CREATES A UNIQUE ZONING FOR THAT LAND ONLY.WE'VE ALSO HEARD THAT SOME LAWYERS WILL TRY AND CHALLENGE THAT.
BUT WE'VE, WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS THAT THE ZONING IS UNIQUE AND IS NOT PRECEDENT SETTING'S.
WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR ON THE ZONING SIDE OF IT, ON THE DENSITY SIDE, AND OUR PLANNING FOLKS MAY WEIGH IN HERE, SOME FOLKS HAVE SAID THEY BOUGHT THE LAND THERE WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE NEIGHBORING LAND WOULD BE A TWO 'CAUSE IT WAS OWNED A TWO WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN A TWO PLANNING IS TWO ACRES.
SO THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THEIR NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE AT LEAST TWO ACRES IF IT STAYS ZONED A TWO.
THE, THE MINERAL LOSS SIZE IS GENERALLY TWO ACRES EXCEPT FOR ANY ROAD.
ANY, EXCUSE ME, LOT THAT FRONTS ON A PUBLIC ROAD.
SO IT'S, SO TWO TO THREE, TWO OR THREE WOULD BE THE EXPECTATION THAT IF IT'S A TWO NEXT TO ME, IT'S GONNA BE AT LEAST THAT MM-HMM.
IN THIS ONE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR FOUR ACRES, ROUGHLY, ALMOST TWICE THAT CAN, IF THIS IS APPROVED, CAN THAT FOUR ACRES SHRINK DOWN TO THE A TWO MINIMUM OR DOES IT REQUIRED TO STAY AT THE FOUR ACRES? WELL, THEY DID COMMIT TO THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
SO THE SUBDIVISION PLATT NEEDS TO GENERALLY REFLECT THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT SIX ACRES, ABOUT FOUR ACRES, UM, IS WHAT THEY SHOULD.
THIS R ONE MINIMUM WOULD BE FOUR ACRES.
'CAUSE THEY CAN'T CHANGE THAT FOUR.
BASED ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN? CORRECT.
SO DIFFERENT ZONING, BUT DIFFERENT MINIMUM SIZE.
A TWO, MINIMUM SIZE IS TWO TO THREE.
THIS R ONE IS MINIMUM SIZE OF FOUR.
UM, STEP BACK THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE R ONE WOULD ACTUALLY BE ONE AND A HALF ACRES.
THE REASON IT'S SIX AND FOUR IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING.
THEY'VE COMMITTED THEIR CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT SHOWS THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE GONNA LOOK LIKE THE LOTS THEY SHOWED.
NOW YOU'VE SHIFTED TO A THIRD CATEGORY.
THERE'S THE A TWO, UNRESTRICTED GENERAL, THERE'S THE R ONE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER HERE, AND THEN THERE'S THE R ONE UNCONSTRAINED UNRESTRICTED.
IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT THEY'VE REPRESENTED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE BOARD'S BACK.
THE ONLY ONE RESTRICT, I'M TALKING ABOUT BOARD TO ASK FOR PERMISSION.
SO THE A TWO UNRESTRICTED WOULD BE TWO TO THREE.
THIS PARTICULAR CASE, R ONE IS RESTRICTED TO FOUR R ONE UNRESTRICTED WOULD BE 1.8.
SO THE REZONING IS NOT TO THE, FROM THE TWO ACRE MINIMUM TO THE 1.88 MINIMUM, THEY'RE ASKING TO REZONE FROM A TWO, WHICH CARRIES A TWO ACRE MINIMUM TO AN R ONE THAT HAS A FOUR ACRE MINIMUM.
'CAUSE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
SO THE R ONE WHERE YOU CAN DO 1.8 THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE HERE.
IS THAT TO THIS CASE? CORRECT.
SO THAT'S THE PIECE THAT HAS BEEN CONFUSING ME.
WHY ARE THEY ASKING TO CHANGE IT FROM A TWO TO R ONE? THE PROCEDURAL? BECAUSE THEY, BECAUSE DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED, THEY CANNOT, THEY USED UP ALL THEIR BUYRIGHT SPLITS.
THEY USED UP ALL THEIR AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT SPLITS WHEN THEY CREATED THE SUBDIVISION.
SO WHENEVER THE BUYRIGHT SPLITS ARE USED UP, THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE ANOTHER SPLIT IS TO REZONE FROM AN AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
AND THAT'S, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES, A PROCEDURAL THING THAT REQUIRES YOU TO GO THIS DIRECTION.
THIS IS, THIS IS HELPFUL FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND, UM, THE IMPACT OF THE REZONING.
IT HAS A DIFFERENT INITIAL R INSTEAD OF A, BUT THE PRACTICALITY IS THE DENSITY IS MUCH HIGHER.
IT, IT COULD BE IN AN A TWO, THE PROFFERS ADD THAT EXTRA LAYER OF REGULATION TO THIS ZONING DISTRICT IN THIS APPLICATION.
SO THAT EXPLORES THE ZONING, WHICH WAS THE FIRST DIMENSION, THE DENSITY, WHICH IS THE SECOND DIMENSION OF WHAT COULD THEY DO IN A TWO UNRESTRICTED, WHAT COULD THEY DO IN R ONE UNRESTRICTED, AND WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER HERE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THOSE.
UH, THE THIRD ONE IS USES, AND THERE'S A LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN A ONE AND A TWO AND R ONE.
UM, GOING FROM A TWO TO R ONE, COULD YOU ELABORATE A BIT ON THE CHANGE IN PERMITTED USES, UH, IN A TWO? IS IT DAIRY FARM AND R ONE? IS THERE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL USES? IS THAT VERY GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL'S GONNA BE MORE RESTRICTED.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE FEWER BUYRIGHT USES FEWER USE FEWER C U P USES.
UM, AN AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, UM, IS TYPICALLY GONNA HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR PERMITTED USES AND MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS.
SO IT REALLY RESTRICTS IT TO A RESIDENTIAL TYPE USE AS OPPOSED TO A BROADER MENU OF POTENTIAL USES.
[04:25:01]
ARE THE KIND OF THE THREE DIMENSIONS.I'M LOOKING AT THIS, THE REZONING, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, THE DENSITY, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH THE DIFFERENT ZONINGS AND THE USES? HOW WOULD THAT COMPARE BETWEEN THE A TWO AND THE R ONE? SO YOU'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL WITH THAT.
MS. LASETTE, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS AND I'M GONNA ASK IT AGAIN.
I THINK I ASKED MSID TO SEE IF YOU GIMME A DENT.
KEEP TRYING PHONE A FRIEND UNTIL I GET THE ANSWER I WANT.
UM, SO THE REASON WHY THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE SPLIT INTO A TWO AND A TWO IS BECAUSE OF THE SUBDIVISION.
AND IT CAN'T BE LIKE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, I GUESS SELL.
THE OPTION FOR A C E P FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THEM.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE BOARD.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M JUST ASKING IN AN A TWO CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT SPLITTING THE PROPERTY'S STILL 10 ACRES, THEY COULD APPLY.
IS WELL ACCESSORY DWELLING, IS THAT PERMITTED IN A TWO? IT MIGHT BE, UH, NOT BASED ON THE, IF THEY HAD MORE ACREAGE, THEY COULD HAVE A SECOND DWELLING UNIT BY RIGHT.
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ACREAGE TO HAVE A SECOND DWELLING UNIT BY.
WHAT ABOUT C D P APPLICATIONS? BUT C E P ABSOLUTELY.
THEY COULD APPLY FOR A C E P FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT, DETACH, DETACHED, DETACHED ACCESSORY AS OPPOSED TO A SECOND HOME.
SO THERE COULD BE TWO BUILDINGS, TWO DWELLING UNITS, DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
BUT IT WOULD STILL BE ONE LOT.
AND, AND SO, UM, I, SO YOU'RE TELLING ME IN AN A TWO ZONING DISTRICT, 10 ACRES IS NOT ENOUGH LAND.
WE JUST APPROVED ONE OF THREE ACRES OR 3.8 ACRES.
SO 10 ACRES IS NOT, I I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ASKED FOR.
I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THIS.
SO ON 10 ACRES, THEY CANNOT HAVE AN ACCESSORY D UH, DETACHED.
BY, RIGHT BY, RIGHT BY, RIGHT BY, RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND THE ONE WE DID EARLIER WAS NOT BY, RIGHT? YEAH.
THESE FOLKS COULD DO THE SAME THING.
AND, AND MR. PETERSON, THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE YOU ALWAYS BREAK IT DOWN IN, IN HELPFUL WAYS.
BUT, BUT YOUR, YOUR COMMENT THAT THE EXPECTATION WHEN PEOPLE MOVED IN A TWO, THE EXPECTATION WAS TWO TO THREE ACRE LOTS THAT WENT AWAY.
THAT WENT AWAY WHEN THEY SUBDIVIDED, THAT EXPECTATION MAY BE CREATED WHEN, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY DID THE SUBDIVISION.
BUT ONCE THEY DID THE SPLITS, I KNOW THAT'S UNDER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, BUT WE ARE HERE FOR A REZONING PAID CASE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, THEY CANNOT DO TWO AND THREE ACRES HERE.
AND, AND THAT WENT AWAY BACK IN 79 OR WHENEVER THE SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED.
SO THAT'S ALL YOU, YOU CAN'T IGNORE THAT FACT.
I THINK 'CAUSE PEOPLE MOVING IN SINCE THEN, THE EXPECTATION IS BASED ON WHAT YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
AND, AND THE FACT IS, THEY DID A SUBDIVISION AND, AND MR. COLEMAN KEPT SAYING THEY, BUT I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE WHOLE LOT, DID THEIR BUY RIGHT SPLITS AND BOOM, THAT ENDED IT.
SO ANY EXPECTATION IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT A TWO SHOULD ALLOW TWO TO THREE ACRES THAT VANISHED ONCE THEY EXCI ONCE THEY WENT THROUGH THAT SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
SO I, I JUST, I, I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC, BUT I, IT BREAKS DOWN FOR ME AT THAT POINT THAT, THAT THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT REZONING.
AND, AND THAT'S BEEN THAT WAY.
AND ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, ALL THE OTHER LOTS IN THERE, CAN'T DO ANY MORE SUBDIVISION WITHOUT REZONING.
UM, SO THIS ONE WAS INTERESTING FOR ME.
UM, 'CAUSE YOU DO THINK, WELL, IT'S, YOU KNOW, FOUR ACRE LOTT THAT'S BIGGER THAN THE LOTT I LIVE ON.
AND I, I FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT MY SUBDIVISION.
HOWEVER, TO ME, THE BIG DISTINCTION IS THAT THIS ISN'T, BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT THE CASES WE'VE DONE RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE SUBDIVIDED LOTS OUT IN DISTRICT ONE AND DISTRICT TWO, MOST OF THE EGRIN OF SOME FOLKS OUT THERE.
BUT TO ME, THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS IS THAT, AND I LIKE THAT MR. COLEMAN USED THE WORD MASTER PLAN.
THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION WHEN PEOPLE MOVED IN THAT THIS WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS WASN'T JUST A 10 ACRE PARCEL OFF HAYDENVILLE FIVE.
THIS WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WAS SET UP A CERTAIN WAY.
SO FOR ME, THAT IS A VERY BIG DISTINCTION.
AND I, I WON'T, I WON'T, UM, PARROT WHAT MR. LUMPKIN SAID ABOUT, AND I THINK MR. VADERS AS WELL, THAT WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS IN THIS BOARD, AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, WE CAN'T SAY THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT ALL THE GROWTH IN ONE AREA AND THEN APPROVE EVERYTHING THAT COMES DOWN THE PIKE.
THAT'S NOT IN THE DESIGNATED GROWTH AREAS.
THAT'S, THAT'S, I, WE, WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT IN.
[04:30:01]
UM, FOR ME, THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS IS THE MASTER PLAN.IF I WAS, IF I WAS IN THOSE FOLKS' SHOES AND I WAS MOVING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, I, I, I LIVE IN A SUBDIVISION.
I DON'T EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE MY THREE ACRE LOTS AND MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, TWO, ONE AND A HALF ACRE LOTS.
IT'S JUST NOT, IT'S, IT, TO ME THAT'S, IT'S VERY DIFFERENT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION OR COMMENTS, MS. CHAIRMAN, UH, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD DENY REZONING CASE 23 7 FOR THE 10 ACRES AT 1600 BEAVER DAM CREEK ROAD FROM AGRICULTURAL A TWO TO R UH, RESIDENTIAL LIMITED R ONE ON THE GROUNDS THAT IS NOT KEEPING WITH PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, GENERAL WEAR FOR WELFARE, GOOD ZONING PRACTICES, AND, AND IN WITH OUR, WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PLANS FOR GROWTH IN THE GROWTH AREAS.
MR. VADERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE.
SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE 10 MINUTES.
UH, BIG HAND ON THE EIGHT, PLEASE.
[04:43:42]
YEP.[04:43:42]
STILL? YEP.ALRIGHT, WE GOT NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN SITIS.
[6. 5798: District 5 - RZ-2023-00010 Application by Hermitage County Club,]
GOOD EVENING BACK AGAIN.'CAUSE I DREW THE SHORT STRAW.
I WAS GONNA SAY POPULAR DEMAND, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S REALLY A THING.
UM, SO, UM, THESE ARE THE LAST TWO CASES YOU HAVE THIS EVENING.
THEY ARE RELATED TO A REZONING REQUEST AS WELL AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR HERMITAGE COUNTRY CLUB, WHICH AS I'M SURE YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH, IS AN ESTABLISHED ENTITY HERE IN GOOCHLAND COUNTY.
UM, THE REQUEST THAT WE WILL GO THROUGH FIRST, AND I HAVE A FEW NOTES.
UM, THERE ARE TWO REQUESTS BEFORE THE BOARD.
AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THE FIRST IS A REZONING, UM, OF A PORTION OF A LOT WITHIN THE BROAD RUN SUBDIVISION FROM R THREE TO A TWO WITH THE INTENT TO ADD THAT PROPERTY TO THE HERMITAGE GOLF COURSE FOR GOLF COURSE USE.
THE SECOND REQUEST IS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING C U P THAT DATES BACK TO 1971, UM, TO USE THE INCLUDED PROPERTY THAT WILL BE REZONED IF REZONED, UM, AS PART OF THE GOLF COURSE.
SO IF THE REZONING IS APPROVED, THEY'RE ALSO TRYING TO RUN THEIR, UM, C U P CONCURRENT
[04:45:01]
WITH TONIGHT'S ACTION SO THAT THEN THEY CAN JUST IN ONE FAIL SWOOP, HAVE IT COME UNDER.UM, CONDITIONS, THE BOARD MAY HOLD ONE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST, BUT IT WOULD NEED TO HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION AND VOTE ON EACH REQUEST.
SO, UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ACTUAL ACREAGE THAT THE GOLF COURSE IS LOOKING TO HAVE, UM, REZONED, UM, FOR INCLUSION INTO THEIR FACILITY, IT'S 3.8 ACRES, WHICH WOULD THEN BECOME PART OF THEIR LARGER FACILITY.
UM, NOW THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THE AREA THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT IS AGRICULTURAL LIMITED A TWO.
AND THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATES IT AS A RURAL ENHANCEMENT AREA, UM, DEEPER RUN HUNT COUNTRY COMMUNITY.
AND SO JUST A LITTLE ORIENTATION MAP AGAIN, UM, IT IS HERMITAGE COUNTRY CLUB OFF OF HERMITAGE ROAD.
IT'S EASILY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH ROUTE TWO 50 OR ROUTE SIX.
UM, AND JUST, UM, ORIENTING YOU TO NEARBY, UM, OTHER PROPERTIES.
THERE'S THE BROAD RUN SUBDIVISION IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE HERMITAGE COUNTRY CLUB.
AGAIN, THERE'S HERMITAGE ROAD.
UM, THAT'S THE NEAREST MAJOR THROUGH FAIR ROAD.
UM, DOWN HERE IN THE BLUE DASHED LINES.
THAT IS THE THREE ACRES, UM, THAT WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS.
UM, AND THEY ARE HOPING TO ADD THE REZONING OF THOSE THREE ACRES INTO THEIR LARGER, UM, GOLF COURSE, UH, PARCEL OF THE EXISTING NINE ACRES THAT THEY HAVE.
SO AGAIN, UH, JUST GOING OVER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VICINITY MAP, UM, THIS AREA IS, UM, BEING ADDED TO THE COUNTRY CLUB GROUNDS.
IT'S CALLS FOR OP RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE IN THIS VICINITY.
AND AGAIN, THEY'RE TRYING TO, UM, ACQUIRE SOME A TWO SPACE, GET IT REZONED SO THAT THEN IT BECOMES PART OF RECREATION OPEN SPACE.
SO IT'S STILL PRESERVING THAT RURAL CHARACTER FEEL OF OPEN SPACES.
THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON THE REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE, UM, CASES ON JUNE 29TH, 2023.
UM, MR. PUCK, UH, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THERE AS WELL AS SIX CITIZENS WERE IN ATTENDANCE.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD ON THE PROPOSED USE IF THERE WOULD BE ANY STRUCTURES ON THOSE THREE ACRES TO BE LOCATED, UM, INTO THE LARGER GOLF COURSE PROPERTY.
ANY LIGHTING BUFFERS, ANY SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, ATTENDEES WERE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL NOT CONTAIN ANY STRUCTURES, ANY, UM, LIGHTING ANY LARGE FACILITY FACILITY AND THAT IT WILL BE USED FOR A DRIVING RANGE, UM, IF IT'S APPROVED TO MOVE FORWARD.
CITIZEN COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HEARING STAFF RECEIVE ONE EMAIL IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.
FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION.
STAFF RECEIVE ONE PHONE CALL AND OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FROM A BROAD RUN RESIDENT OPPOSING THE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION OF THE EXISTING LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND, AND WHERE THAT'S OCCURRING IS YOU HAVE A, UM, PRIVATE LOT OWNER WHO'S WILLING TO WANTING TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT TO SELL, UM, A PORTION OF IT TO THE HERMITAGE COUNTRY CLUB AND HENCE THE EFFORT TO GET THE REZONING SO THAT THEY MAY USE IT FOR GOLF COURSE PURPOSES.
UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON A 4.0 VOTE.
NO ONE SPOKE DURING THE HEARING, AND THIS WAS DURING THE AUGUST MEETING.
AND AGAIN, JUST A SUMMARY OF THE REZONING.
IT'S THE 3.8 ACRE PORTION OF A 9.5887 ACRE LOT WITHIN THE BROAD RUN SUBDIVISION.
THE REZONING INTENT IS TO ADD THAT REZONE PORTION TO THE HER HERMITAGE COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE FOR THEIR USE FOR GOLF.
THERE'S PROFFERED PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REZONE PROPERTY TO INCLUDE PARCEL AND PLAT AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THE LIMITING USE OF PROPERTY TO ONLY A DRIVING RAN, SORRY, DRIVING RANGE LANDING AREA OR CHAMPION TEE BOX FOR THE GOLF COURSE.
SO NOTHING THAT IS, UM, IMPOSING OR OVERT STRUCTURE LIMITING IMPROVEMENTS PERMITTED ON THE SITE AND PROVIDING A 50 FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SO ON THIS CONCEPTUAL, UM, WHICH THEY ARE PROFFERING, THERE IS THE 50 FOOT BUFFER THAT, UM, WOULD BE BORDERING NEARBY ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AND THEN HERE AGAIN, IT SHOWS THAT THREE ACRES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, UM, WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING TO INCLUDE THAT INTO THEIR LARGER GOLF COURSE, UM, AMENITIES AND OFFERINGS.
THERE IS ALSO, UM, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I WILL PAUSE IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE AND GO THROUGH ANY QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE REZONING OR JUST KEEP GOING THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE TO TIE IT ALL TOGETHER, MS. LASETTE.
[04:50:01]
SO THIS, UH, SUBDIVISION, IS IT SUBJECT TO THE SUBDIVISION RULES THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IN A PREVIOUS CASE? I WILL ASK MR. CASH TO COME UP.SO IN THIS SITUATION, THE, THE PURPOSE IS NOT TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL LOT.
THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE OF A LINE, UM, A PROPERTY TRANSVERSE OR A PROPERTY MODIFICATION.
SO NO NEW LOTS ARE CREATED, SO THE PROPERTY'S NOT BEING REALLY SUBDIVIDED.
IT'S BEING, UM, IT'LL BE MODIFIED TO ANOTHER.
SO THE DIFFERENCE IN DISTINCTION THAT THIS ONE IS, IT'S NOT IN THE OTHER SITUATION.
YOU HAD A PREVIOUS, UM, SUBDIVISION THAT BEEN CREATED THROUGH THE PARENT TRACKS.
IN THIS SCENARIO, THE PURPOSE IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO BE ADDED TO AN ADDITIONAL, UM, EXISTING PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S NOT AN INCREASE IN DENSITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, WE WERE TAKING ONE LOT AND DIVIDING IT UP.
IN THIS CASE WE'VE GOT ONE LOT AND WE'RE DIVIDING IT UP.
I'M NOT SURE I SEE THE DISTINCTION.
SO THE DISTINCTION IS THAT FOR THIS, YOU'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE A LOT FOR BUILDING PURPOSES.
SO IN THIS SCENARIO, WHAT THE APPLICANTS ARE DOING IS ACTUALLY EXTRACTING A PIECE OUT OF THE A TWO SUBDIVISION AND ADDING IT TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR NEW USE.
SO AS IT WAS BEING SPLIT THERE, THAT PROPOSED, UM, DIVI, WELL, THE PROS MODIFICATION THAT PARCEL A AREA WOULDN'T MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR A BUILDABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE THE ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT, UM, WOULDN'T MEET THE DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
SO THE DISTINCTION IS, IS THAT THE OTHER PURPOSE WAS TO CREATE ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL LOT.
SO IN THIS CASE, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, THEN NEITHER LOT WOULD BE ABLE TO WOULD BE BUILDABLE.
UM, THE REMAINING PARCEL, I THINK IT'S UP THERE, IT'S LABELED AS PARCEL B, THAT'S THE ORIGINAL LOT THAT STILL WOULD BE BUILDABLE.
IT'D ACTUALLY BE OVER ALMOST SIX ACRES OF PROPERTY.
UM, THAT WOULD STILL MEET THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S STILL ONE EXISTING BUILDABLE LOT AS OPPOSED TO CREATING A SECOND BUILDABLE LOT.
SO THAT IT, IT LITTLE SEMANTICS I GUESS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
CAN I TAKE A CRACK AT THIS? SO ARE YOU SAYING WE'RE, WE'VE GOT TWO LOTS.
THIS ONE'S WE'RE GONNA CHOP IT OFF THIS AND THEN TACK IT ONTO THIS ONE.
SO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE JUST SHIFTING THE PROPERTY LINE REALLY.
WE'RE JUST MOVING PROPERTY LINES, RIGHT? WELL THAT'S BEFORE, YEAH.
WHEREAS THE OTHER ONE WE WERE, WE A PROPERTY LINE, WE WERE TAKING LOT, THIS ISN'T CREATING ANOTHER LOT RIGHT THERE.
THIS IS NOT CREATING ANOTHER LOT FOR SALE OR ANOTHER BUILDABLE LOT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO IF THE, UM, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH PROBABLY NOT OUR PROBLEM, I GUESS REQUIRES 10 ACRE MINIMUM, THEN THAT OTHER LOT IS NOT GONNA BE BUILDABLE.
UM, WELL IN THIS CASE, UM, LOTS IN THE SUB LOTS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT RANGE FROM LIKE 1.5 ACRES ON THIS CUL-DE-SAC UP TO THIS ONE WAS LIKE NINE ACRES.
UM, SO IT, IT VARIES, BUT, UM, IF THERE'S COVENANTS, UM, DATA RELATED TO BUILDABLE ACREAGE OR REQUIRED ACREAGE, UM, STAFF'S NOT AWARE OF IT.
AND OF COURSE WE CAN ENFORCE IT.
UM, UNDER THE, THE ZONING PROVISIONS WHEN THIS WAS CREATED YEARS AGO, UM, IT CREATED A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT LOT SIZES.
UM, FOR THIS SCENARIO, WHAT THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO TAKE OUT OF THAT LOT, UM, I THINK IT'S LOT NINE OR, OR WHATEVER.
IT'S IN THAT SUBDIVISION, THEY'RE ADDING IT INTO THE HERMITAGE COUNTRY CLUB.
I UNDERSTAND THAT ON THE REVISED ZONING.
SO IT DOESN'T, IF IT'S NOT CREATING ANOTHER BUILDABLE LOT, WHICH WAS REALLY THE CONCERN OF I GUESS THE, THE ADJACENT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, NOR IS IT CRAIG, A LOT THAT REMAINS BUILDABLE ON THAT CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE SIZES OF SURROUNDING LOTS.
AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, MS. HOAS, IF A SECOND QUESTION, IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO THE, UM, THE CONDITIONS, UM, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU WERE TALKING, THERE WAS ONE BULLET POINT THAT TALKED ABOUT, UM, NOTHING BUILDABLE, LET'S GO BACK AND EVERYTHING.
NO VERTICAL IMPROVEMENTS, NO VERTICAL IMPROVEMENTS, CORRECT.
LIMITING IMPROVEMENTS, THE PROFIT PROVISIONS.
LIMITING IMPROVEMENTS PERMITTED ON SITE.
[04:55:01]
WE WANT, WE CAN, I GUESS I'M SORRY, I, I PROVIDED A LIST OF THE FULL PROFFERS AT THE END.UM, WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS DOING IS THEY WANTED TO SHOW THAT THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO REALLY ONLY BE FOR THE LANDING EAR AND THE, UM, POTENTIALLY A CHAMPIONSHIP STYLE TEE BOX FOR PRACTICE SITUATION.
SO WHAT THEY DID IS THEY LIMITED THE WHAT COULD BE DONE ON THE PROPERTY AND IT CAN HAVE NUMBER SIX WHERE IT CAN HAVE IMPROVED BUILDINGS, OTHER AMENITIES OR ANY STRUCTURE INCLUDING LIGHT POLES, LIGHTING BALL, WASHING STATIONS.
AND REALLY THEY DID THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONCERN FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY AND NOW YOU'RE GONNA PUT A LOT OF ACTIVITY RIGHT.
ADJACENT TO OUR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
UM, SO RATHER THAN LIST AS A A, YOU JUST STATED THAT PREVIOUS STATEMENT.
OH, DOLLY, I WAS GOING BACKWARDS.
IT'S DANGEROUS WHEN I DRIVE AT NIGHT.
SO ONTO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE REZONING REQUEST.
UM, THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED IN 1971.
THEY ARE SEEKING A, UM, SOME, UM, UPDATES TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE GOLF COURSE.
UM, AND REALLY LOOKING AT, UM, HOW THEY ADD THAT ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THAT THEY INTEND TO USE AS A DRIVING RANGE LANDING AREA OR CHAMPION TEE BOX FOR THE GOLF COURSE.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE, UM, NEW PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD FOCUS ON.
THERE'S TWO SPECIFICALLY ONE, UM, THAT SPEAKS TO PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE AND ANY PERMITTED ACTIVITY WITHIN 50 FOOT OF THE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
SO IT'S PROHIBITING THAT AND PRESERVING THAT SPACE.
THE OTHER CONDITION IS REQUIREMENT THAT THE NEW PROPERTY BE ADDED TO THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S PHYSICALLY CONSIDERED GOLF COURSE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE? IT'S A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR.
A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF HERMITAGE COUNTRY CLUB, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT.
UM, FOR THIS RIGHT NOW IT IS OWNED BY BERKELEY LAND COMPANY, L L C, AND THAT'S THE OWNER OF THE PARENT TRACK, THE NINE PLUS UH, ACRES.
WHEN IT GETS SUBDIVIDED, THEY'RE GOING TO, TO BUILD A, A RESIDENCE ON THE, THE REMAINING PROPERTY.
UM, IT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LARGEST LOTS THAT'S IN THE, THE SUBDIVISION.
SO SUBDIVIDING IT, UH, TO BE ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF PLUS ACRES.
AND THE 3.8, UH, REALLY WOULD NOT IMPACT IT, IT WOULD NOT REDUCE THE LOT SIZE, I GUESS, IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE, THE H O A.
SO THERE ARE SOME COVENANTS, UH, THAT DO NOT ALLOW SUBDIVISION UNLESS IT IS, UM, APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE.
THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, SO THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE SUB SUBDIVISION AND THEN THE VACATION OF THE BOUNDARY LINES TO ADD THAT TO THE GOLF COURSE ITSELF.
UM, WHEN WE HAD THE COMMUNITY MEETING, UH, WE TOOK THE, THE CITIZENS, UM, I GUESS COMMENTS REALLY SERIOUSLY.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT WE WERE GOING TO ONLY EVER BE USING THIS AS A LANDING AREA.
IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE, UH, TO CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL DRIVING RANGE BAYS, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS.
UH, AND IN FACT, WE AREN'T GOING TO PUT ANY BALL WASHING STATIONS OR ANYTHING IN IT.
IT, IT IS JUST FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, GOING TO BE GRASS.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AS WELL.
BOARD ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO BOARD, WE WILL BE TAKING UP TWO SEPARATE VOTES ON THIS IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION OR, UH, ENTERTAIN THE FIRST MOTION.
SO, MR. GUTIERREZ, AGAIN, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS IS NOT SO MUCH A SPLIT, AS IS A SPLIT AND SIMULTANEOUS LOT LINE VACATION.
SO THE NET OF THOSE TWO SIMULTANEOUS ACTIONS IS REALLY JUST A REDUCTION IN ACREAGE ON THE ONE LOT AND AN INCREASE IN ACREAGE ON THE OTHER LOT.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF VOTING.
THEY'RE ON THE SAME PAGE THEN.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MR. CHAIR? I'M SO PREPARED.
[05:00:01]
PREPARED.UH, WELL IN THAT CASE, UH, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD APPROVED REZONING CASE RZ 2023, NUMBER 10 FOR A 3.8 PLUS ACREAGE PORTION OF NINE POINT SOMETHING ACREAGE AT THREE, ONE DRIVE FOR RESIDENTIAL GENERAL R THREE TO OUR AGRICULTURAL LIMITED, R A TWO WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED.
MR. S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, ROLL CALL VOTE.
WE HAVE A SECOND ITEM FROM CD.
YOU'RE STILL VERY PREPARED TO RECEIVE EVEN MORE SO.
ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GRANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 2023, NUMBER 11 FOR GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE AND COUNTRY CLUB
[7. 5802: District 5 - CU-2023-00011 Application by Hermitage Country Club]
AT THREE QUAIL RUN DRIVE, SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSED CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED.MR. VADERS FURTHER DISCUSSION.
UM, THAT IS ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THIS EVENING.
WE WILL ADJOURN TILL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3RD ON OUR REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING AT 6:00 PM THANKS.